Rolf Harris has no remorse, says youngest victim Wendy Wild from Southampton

Rolf Harris

Rolf Harris

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by

ROLF Harris's youngest victim has claimed the performer has ''no remorse in any shape or form'' after he launched a bid to appeal against his conviction for a string of indecent assaults.

Wendy Wild, from Southampton, who was groped at the age of just seven or eight when she went to get the musician's autograph in the late 1960s, said she felt as if Harris was saying ''you're never going to stop me'' with his legal bid.

The 52-year-old, who has waived the usual right to anonymity, said: ''I was very shocked by it and very upset. It was the last thing I imagined hearing. It really shook me up and it's really wrong of him. It shows that he's got no remorse in any shape or form.

''It just seemed like I couldn't move on from it. It's not going to go away, he's not going to give up.

''I remember as a child his eyes were very cold, I felt that again during the trial. It's almost as if he's saying 'you're never going to get to me, you're never going to stop me'.

''I almost felt like I was in the cell with him, serving time with him. The pain I felt, it was terrible.''

On Friday it was confirmed that the 84-year-old's lawyers had lodged papers at the Court of Appeal asking for permission to appeal against his conviction for 12 counts of indecent assault.

The entertainer, once a family favourite, was unmasked as a paedophile who was fixated with underage girls after his trial at Southwark Crown Court earlier this year.

He was jailed for five years and nine months for his decades preying on victims including Wendy, Australian Tonya Lee and another girl who was in her early teens, and abusing his daughter's friend for 16 years.

Ms Wild also found out last week that Harris's sentence will not be referred to appeal judges on the grounds that it was unduly lenient, which she said was ''a terrible shock''.

But the 52-year-old, who contacted police after abuse claims were publicly aired against Jimmy Savile in an ITV documentary, said she has derived some comfort now that her tormentor is behind bars.

She added: ''I'm better now that everyone knows, and now I can talk about it.

''When you get a situation with somebody like that you think you're the only one, but you're never going to be the only one. That's the thing that stuck in my head.''

Harris, who will serve just under three years in prison, has been spat at by another inmate at HMP Bullingdon in Oxfordshire, but was not hurt.

He has already been stripped of a Bafta fellowship and faces losing his prestigious CBE in the wake of his conviction, and his multi-million pound fortune is also at risk from potential compensation claims.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:48pm Mon 4 Aug 14

The Wickham Man says...

This is going to sound harsh but we are putting people away for the wrong reasons. You are supposed to be guilty of actual crimes at the time they were committed, not by the prudish times of a generation later. All this emotive language and feelings today of "hurt", "betrayal", on their own are not good enough. Rolf Harris's eyes don't "speak" - that is not evidence of anything. This person is projecting her own feelings and looking at a reflection of how she feels. She may be upset but that may or may not Rolf Harris's doing. All this "coldness" is just so much claptrap. How is he supposed to look less "cold?" You tell me. If this woman has led an unhappy life it is quite convenient to grab at some event from the distant past and inflate and arrange it to become the cause of everything that may have gone wrong later. It is classic displacement theory. In the seventies there were loads of footballers celebrities heartthrobs and pop stars and what made them different to other people was opportunity. Wiy aren't the surviving Rolling Stones, the Beatles and every other band on TOTP now on trial too? The times were also very different. In the seventies pinching a girls bum was usually the cause for a laugh not a court case. It may be wrong but that's the truth and literally millions of women experienced sexism, but just grew up with it with no ill effects. WHen anyone claims their lives have been destroyed by a bit of a feel for second or two and nothing more then they probably need counselling, not vengeance.
This is going to sound harsh but we are putting people away for the wrong reasons. You are supposed to be guilty of actual crimes at the time they were committed, not by the prudish times of a generation later. All this emotive language and feelings today of "hurt", "betrayal", on their own are not good enough. Rolf Harris's eyes don't "speak" - that is not evidence of anything. This person is projecting her own feelings and looking at a reflection of how she feels. She may be upset but that may or may not Rolf Harris's doing. All this "coldness" is just so much claptrap. How is he supposed to look less "cold?" You tell me. If this woman has led an unhappy life it is quite convenient to grab at some event from the distant past and inflate and arrange it to become the cause of everything that may have gone wrong later. It is classic displacement theory. In the seventies there were loads of footballers celebrities heartthrobs and pop stars and what made them different to other people was opportunity. Wiy aren't the surviving Rolling Stones, the Beatles and every other band on TOTP now on trial too? The times were also very different. In the seventies pinching a girls bum was usually the cause for a laugh not a court case. It may be wrong but that's the truth and literally millions of women experienced sexism, but just grew up with it with no ill effects. WHen anyone claims their lives have been destroyed by a bit of a feel for second or two and nothing more then they probably need counselling, not vengeance. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 40

6:53pm Mon 4 Aug 14

hdsaint says...

This is all very boring now.
This is all very boring now. hdsaint
  • Score: 13

6:56pm Mon 4 Aug 14

eurogordi says...

"Seven or eight"? So were you seven or were you eight? Presumably the event was so shocking that you would know for certain, perhaps down to the date and time. People will call me cold and callous, but I have huge concerns about these celebrity and political witch hunts that seem to be the only focus of the CPS these days. And before anyone asks, do I remember what happened to me, where and when? YES! Have I moved on with my life even though the memories remain some 40 years later? YES!
"Seven or eight"? So were you seven or were you eight? Presumably the event was so shocking that you would know for certain, perhaps down to the date and time. People will call me cold and callous, but I have huge concerns about these celebrity and political witch hunts that seem to be the only focus of the CPS these days. And before anyone asks, do I remember what happened to me, where and when? YES! Have I moved on with my life even though the memories remain some 40 years later? YES! eurogordi
  • Score: 24

7:07pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Huey says...

Urgh his bearded peado face makes me feel sick. Dirty old perv.
Urgh his bearded peado face makes me feel sick. Dirty old perv. Huey
  • Score: -26

7:10pm Mon 4 Aug 14

noodlesnewman says...

Huey wrote:
Urgh his bearded peado face makes me feel sick. Dirty old perv.
bill mulloney ,pie and mash films ,WATCH IT ! enough said .....
[quote][p][bold]Huey[/bold] wrote: Urgh his bearded peado face makes me feel sick. Dirty old perv.[/p][/quote]bill mulloney ,pie and mash films ,WATCH IT ! enough said ..... noodlesnewman
  • Score: -7

7:15pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Stubs says...

I don't think it's a good idea putting an 84 year old in prison for crimes he supposed to had done 30 odd years ago. He hadn't been a bad guy all his life as he helped and did a animal hospital programme on TV .
He may of done something bad years and years ago but I think putting him in prison at that age is wrong thing to do. After all his not going to commit any more crimes at that age.
I don't think it's a good idea putting an 84 year old in prison for crimes he supposed to had done 30 odd years ago. He hadn't been a bad guy all his life as he helped and did a animal hospital programme on TV . He may of done something bad years and years ago but I think putting him in prison at that age is wrong thing to do. After all his not going to commit any more crimes at that age. Stubs
  • Score: 7

7:45pm Mon 4 Aug 14

allstar says...

Stubs wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea putting an 84 year old in prison for crimes he supposed to had done 30 odd years ago. He hadn't been a bad guy all his life as he helped and did a animal hospital programme on TV .
He may of done something bad years and years ago but I think putting him in prison at that age is wrong thing to do. After all his not going to commit any more crimes at that age.
I bet if it was your son or daughter that he interfered with you would change your tune , If not then you must be so far out of touch with reality .
The **** should be made to suffer as much pain as possible.
[quote][p][bold]Stubs[/bold] wrote: I don't think it's a good idea putting an 84 year old in prison for crimes he supposed to had done 30 odd years ago. He hadn't been a bad guy all his life as he helped and did a animal hospital programme on TV . He may of done something bad years and years ago but I think putting him in prison at that age is wrong thing to do. After all his not going to commit any more crimes at that age.[/p][/quote]I bet if it was your son or daughter that he interfered with you would change your tune , If not then you must be so far out of touch with reality . The **** should be made to suffer as much pain as possible. allstar
  • Score: -11

8:05pm Mon 4 Aug 14

good-gosh says...

Celebrities are well aware of their responsibility to show impeccable care with children and those that have not are rightly being called to account. The current wave of prosecutions and sharp punishments are not simply to appease the complainants but more about creating a harsh effective deterrent to others not to overstep the mark in future. It’s the only way to stamp it out.
Celebrities are well aware of their responsibility to show impeccable care with children and those that have not are rightly being called to account. The current wave of prosecutions and sharp punishments are not simply to appease the complainants but more about creating a harsh effective deterrent to others not to overstep the mark in future. It’s the only way to stamp it out. good-gosh
  • Score: -3

9:27pm Mon 4 Aug 14

9 Toes Romsey says...

Stubs wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea putting an 84 year old in prison for crimes he supposed to had done 30 odd years ago. He hadn't been a bad guy all his life as he helped and did a animal hospital programme on TV .
He may of done something bad years and years ago but I think putting him in prison at that age is wrong thing to do. After all his not going to commit any more crimes at that age.
You sound like a paedo sympathiser, pal. Expect a knock from Operation Yewtree in the near future.
[quote][p][bold]Stubs[/bold] wrote: I don't think it's a good idea putting an 84 year old in prison for crimes he supposed to had done 30 odd years ago. He hadn't been a bad guy all his life as he helped and did a animal hospital programme on TV . He may of done something bad years and years ago but I think putting him in prison at that age is wrong thing to do. After all his not going to commit any more crimes at that age.[/p][/quote]You sound like a paedo sympathiser, pal. Expect a knock from Operation Yewtree in the near future. 9 Toes Romsey
  • Score: -3

9:34pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Donald2000 says...

I am very worried about people on here trying to minimise the effects that this man has had on people's lives and there has even been one remark that people needed counselling, rather than revenge.

That this trusted man (and others) have committed such unspeakable acts should be proof that people have a right to say something, not just told to shut up and go away by normans on this appalling commentary system in the Echo, which is about as insane a reply system as ever walked the earth.

People don't need counselling. They need protection from people like Harris and that is what they are now getting. As for the people on here, who have minimised the hurt and grief that this man has caused, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sympathy bypass gone mad.
I am very worried about people on here trying to minimise the effects that this man has had on people's lives and there has even been one remark that people needed counselling, rather than revenge. That this trusted man (and others) have committed such unspeakable acts should be proof that people have a right to say something, not just told to shut up and go away by normans on this appalling commentary system in the Echo, which is about as insane a reply system as ever walked the earth. People don't need counselling. They need protection from people like Harris and that is what they are now getting. As for the people on here, who have minimised the hurt and grief that this man has caused, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sympathy bypass gone mad. Donald2000
  • Score: -2

10:15pm Mon 4 Aug 14

The Wickham Man says...

Donald2000 wrote:
I am very worried about people on here trying to minimise the effects that this man has had on people's lives and there has even been one remark that people needed counselling, rather than revenge.

That this trusted man (and others) have committed such unspeakable acts should be proof that people have a right to say something, not just told to shut up and go away by normans on this appalling commentary system in the Echo, which is about as insane a reply system as ever walked the earth.

People don't need counselling. They need protection from people like Harris and that is what they are now getting. As for the people on here, who have minimised the hurt and grief that this man has caused, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sympathy bypass gone mad.
What do you mean "unspeakable"? COme on Speak it. WHat you will see (if you think about it) are a series of sporadic claims with no pattern. If Harris actually has a predeliction for young chindren there would be more than one claim - and we wouldn't be seeing the scattergun of ages. He had the opportunity to indulge himself and what we seed is a 40 year old man enjoying the company of what were then considered "dolly birds". THe problem is people like you who immediately reach for the extreme of moral outrage and stop thinking carefully and logically. You are the archetypal man who reads the Sun headline then considers himself fully informed and well read. We had witch burning in the 14 century and while we know a lot more now and think we are far more civilised, the people who were clamouring round the fire thought exactly like you do. You don't win any brownie points by trying to be more disgusted than the person next to you - the real problem here is all those moral zealots like you just who think they do. So don't you lecture me about shame.
[quote][p][bold]Donald2000[/bold] wrote: I am very worried about people on here trying to minimise the effects that this man has had on people's lives and there has even been one remark that people needed counselling, rather than revenge. That this trusted man (and others) have committed such unspeakable acts should be proof that people have a right to say something, not just told to shut up and go away by normans on this appalling commentary system in the Echo, which is about as insane a reply system as ever walked the earth. People don't need counselling. They need protection from people like Harris and that is what they are now getting. As for the people on here, who have minimised the hurt and grief that this man has caused, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sympathy bypass gone mad.[/p][/quote]What do you mean "unspeakable"? COme on Speak it. WHat you will see (if you think about it) are a series of sporadic claims with no pattern. If Harris actually has a predeliction for young chindren there would be more than one claim - and we wouldn't be seeing the scattergun of ages. He had the opportunity to indulge himself and what we seed is a 40 year old man enjoying the company of what were then considered "dolly birds". THe problem is people like you who immediately reach for the extreme of moral outrage and stop thinking carefully and logically. You are the archetypal man who reads the Sun headline then considers himself fully informed and well read. We had witch burning in the 14 century and while we know a lot more now and think we are far more civilised, the people who were clamouring round the fire thought exactly like you do. You don't win any brownie points by trying to be more disgusted than the person next to you - the real problem here is all those moral zealots like you just who think they do. So don't you lecture me about shame. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 12

10:32pm Mon 4 Aug 14

noodlesnewman says...

Donald2000 wrote:
I am very worried about people on here trying to minimise the effects that this man has had on people's lives and there has even been one remark that people needed counselling, rather than revenge.

That this trusted man (and others) have committed such unspeakable acts should be proof that people have a right to say something, not just told to shut up and go away by normans on this appalling commentary system in the Echo, which is about as insane a reply system as ever walked the earth.

People don't need counselling. They need protection from people like Harris and that is what they are now getting. As for the people on here, who have minimised the hurt and grief that this man has caused, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sympathy bypass gone mad.
rolf is the tip of the iceberg ! you should see the other names being thrown up in operation yew tree , high level people in government , the law sytem , the armed forces , the care system ,etc etc the list go es on / bill mulloney s pie and mash films tell the grim tale , this abuse goes to the top absolutely staggering , or just look up paedo gate it will change the way you vote forever ! check out BEN FELLOWS ! he was abused posing as a 15 year old working for the cook report ! uncovering the cash for questions scandal , abused in the houses of parliament and it was filmed on two hidden cammera s by central tv , all details on line .
[quote][p][bold]Donald2000[/bold] wrote: I am very worried about people on here trying to minimise the effects that this man has had on people's lives and there has even been one remark that people needed counselling, rather than revenge. That this trusted man (and others) have committed such unspeakable acts should be proof that people have a right to say something, not just told to shut up and go away by normans on this appalling commentary system in the Echo, which is about as insane a reply system as ever walked the earth. People don't need counselling. They need protection from people like Harris and that is what they are now getting. As for the people on here, who have minimised the hurt and grief that this man has caused, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sympathy bypass gone mad.[/p][/quote]rolf is the tip of the iceberg ! you should see the other names being thrown up in operation yew tree , high level people in government , the law sytem , the armed forces , the care system ,etc etc the list go es on / bill mulloney s pie and mash films tell the grim tale , this abuse goes to the top absolutely staggering , or just look up paedo gate it will change the way you vote forever ! check out BEN FELLOWS ! he was abused posing as a 15 year old working for the cook report ! uncovering the cash for questions scandal , abused in the houses of parliament and it was filmed on two hidden cammera s by central tv , all details on line . noodlesnewman
  • Score: 0

12:30am Tue 5 Aug 14

Facewagon says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Donald2000 wrote:
I am very worried about people on here trying to minimise the effects that this man has had on people's lives and there has even been one remark that people needed counselling, rather than revenge.

That this trusted man (and others) have committed such unspeakable acts should be proof that people have a right to say something, not just told to shut up and go away by normans on this appalling commentary system in the Echo, which is about as insane a reply system as ever walked the earth.

People don't need counselling. They need protection from people like Harris and that is what they are now getting. As for the people on here, who have minimised the hurt and grief that this man has caused, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sympathy bypass gone mad.
What do you mean "unspeakable"? COme on Speak it. WHat you will see (if you think about it) are a series of sporadic claims with no pattern. If Harris actually has a predeliction for young chindren there would be more than one claim - and we wouldn't be seeing the scattergun of ages. He had the opportunity to indulge himself and what we seed is a 40 year old man enjoying the company of what were then considered "dolly birds". THe problem is people like you who immediately reach for the extreme of moral outrage and stop thinking carefully and logically. You are the archetypal man who reads the Sun headline then considers himself fully informed and well read. We had witch burning in the 14 century and while we know a lot more now and think we are far more civilised, the people who were clamouring round the fire thought exactly like you do. You don't win any brownie points by trying to be more disgusted than the person next to you - the real problem here is all those moral zealots like you just who think they do. So don't you lecture me about shame.
So, just to make it clear, the "real problem" is not people abusing positions of power to turn human beings into little more than pieces of meat to be pawed at, it's the people who consider that to be wrong. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donald2000[/bold] wrote: I am very worried about people on here trying to minimise the effects that this man has had on people's lives and there has even been one remark that people needed counselling, rather than revenge. That this trusted man (and others) have committed such unspeakable acts should be proof that people have a right to say something, not just told to shut up and go away by normans on this appalling commentary system in the Echo, which is about as insane a reply system as ever walked the earth. People don't need counselling. They need protection from people like Harris and that is what they are now getting. As for the people on here, who have minimised the hurt and grief that this man has caused, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sympathy bypass gone mad.[/p][/quote]What do you mean "unspeakable"? COme on Speak it. WHat you will see (if you think about it) are a series of sporadic claims with no pattern. If Harris actually has a predeliction for young chindren there would be more than one claim - and we wouldn't be seeing the scattergun of ages. He had the opportunity to indulge himself and what we seed is a 40 year old man enjoying the company of what were then considered "dolly birds". THe problem is people like you who immediately reach for the extreme of moral outrage and stop thinking carefully and logically. You are the archetypal man who reads the Sun headline then considers himself fully informed and well read. We had witch burning in the 14 century and while we know a lot more now and think we are far more civilised, the people who were clamouring round the fire thought exactly like you do. You don't win any brownie points by trying to be more disgusted than the person next to you - the real problem here is all those moral zealots like you just who think they do. So don't you lecture me about shame.[/p][/quote]So, just to make it clear, the "real problem" is not people abusing positions of power to turn human beings into little more than pieces of meat to be pawed at, it's the people who consider that to be wrong. Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Facewagon
  • Score: 2

7:49am Tue 5 Aug 14

forest hump says...

What we had, have, will have; are situations where so-called "celebrities" are blindly put on pedestals by adoring, naive fans, followers, admirers. Call them what you will. These, then become simple targets for any of the aforementioned. Regardless of offence severity, those who have taken advantage of their followers have fundamentally abused their revered position. Egos, self-adulation and arrogance combined with a perspective of being "untouchable" has driven this result. Fast forward to present day (driven by law society greed) we live in a litigious era. Possibly false or exaggerated claims thrown in with genuine events, cloud the issue to a point where truth is difficult to establish.
However, it is wrong that "celebs" abuse their positions of fame and equally wrong that our legal systems promote "ambulance chasing" behaviours. The answer? difficult! The sheep mentality will always prevail with the fan population. The boosted egos of celebs will always promote "untouchability" and greedy lawyers' motivation seems to grow exponentially. Hopefully, events that have been exposed ( some possibly wrongfully) will help to check or deter this practice but the Law Society also needs to look in a mirror. As for the followers? Darwin had some comments which might possibly be relevant.
What we had, have, will have; are situations where so-called "celebrities" are blindly put on pedestals by adoring, naive fans, followers, admirers. Call them what you will. These, then become simple targets for any of the aforementioned. Regardless of offence severity, those who have taken advantage of their followers have fundamentally abused their revered position. Egos, self-adulation and arrogance combined with a perspective of being "untouchable" has driven this result. Fast forward to present day (driven by law society greed) we live in a litigious era. Possibly false or exaggerated claims thrown in with genuine events, cloud the issue to a point where truth is difficult to establish. However, it is wrong that "celebs" abuse their positions of fame and equally wrong that our legal systems promote "ambulance chasing" behaviours. The answer? difficult! The sheep mentality will always prevail with the fan population. The boosted egos of celebs will always promote "untouchability" and greedy lawyers' motivation seems to grow exponentially. Hopefully, events that have been exposed ( some possibly wrongfully) will help to check or deter this practice but the Law Society also needs to look in a mirror. As for the followers? Darwin had some comments which might possibly be relevant. forest hump
  • Score: 1

8:14am Tue 5 Aug 14

Kirsty666 says...

Stubs wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea putting an 84 year old in prison for crimes he supposed to had done 30 odd years ago. He hadn't been a bad guy all his life as he helped and did a animal hospital programme on TV .
He may of done something bad years and years ago but I think putting him in prison at that age is wrong thing to do. After all his not going to commit any more crimes at that age.
If you can't do the time don't do the crime. Nobody should get away with assault or harassment weather it be yesterday 10 years ago or however long ago if there is enough evidence they should pay
[quote][p][bold]Stubs[/bold] wrote: I don't think it's a good idea putting an 84 year old in prison for crimes he supposed to had done 30 odd years ago. He hadn't been a bad guy all his life as he helped and did a animal hospital programme on TV . He may of done something bad years and years ago but I think putting him in prison at that age is wrong thing to do. After all his not going to commit any more crimes at that age.[/p][/quote]If you can't do the time don't do the crime. Nobody should get away with assault or harassment weather it be yesterday 10 years ago or however long ago if there is enough evidence they should pay Kirsty666
  • Score: 0

10:16am Tue 5 Aug 14

KayleighJade says...

I'm still not convinced that he did it.

I'll probably get lynched but, I just don't.
I'm still not convinced that he did it. I'll probably get lynched but, I just don't. KayleighJade
  • Score: 2

11:09am Tue 5 Aug 14

Facewagon says...

KayleighJade wrote:
I'm still not convinced that he did it.

I'll probably get lynched but, I just don't.
The jury was convinced that he did. That you remain unconvinced - not having been presented with all the evidence - isn't really important, is it?
[quote][p][bold]KayleighJade[/bold] wrote: I'm still not convinced that he did it. I'll probably get lynched but, I just don't.[/p][/quote]The jury was convinced that he did. That you remain unconvinced - not having been presented with all the evidence - isn't really important, is it? Facewagon
  • Score: 0

11:18am Tue 5 Aug 14

Andy Locks Heath says...

Facewagon wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Donald2000 wrote:
I am very worried about people on here trying to minimise the effects that this man has had on people's lives and there has even been one remark that people needed counselling, rather than revenge.

That this trusted man (and others) have committed such unspeakable acts should be proof that people have a right to say something, not just told to shut up and go away by normans on this appalling commentary system in the Echo, which is about as insane a reply system as ever walked the earth.

People don't need counselling. They need protection from people like Harris and that is what they are now getting. As for the people on here, who have minimised the hurt and grief that this man has caused, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sympathy bypass gone mad.
What do you mean "unspeakable"? COme on Speak it. WHat you will see (if you think about it) are a series of sporadic claims with no pattern. If Harris actually has a predeliction for young chindren there would be more than one claim - and we wouldn't be seeing the scattergun of ages. He had the opportunity to indulge himself and what we seed is a 40 year old man enjoying the company of what were then considered "dolly birds". THe problem is people like you who immediately reach for the extreme of moral outrage and stop thinking carefully and logically. You are the archetypal man who reads the Sun headline then considers himself fully informed and well read. We had witch burning in the 14 century and while we know a lot more now and think we are far more civilised, the people who were clamouring round the fire thought exactly like you do. You don't win any brownie points by trying to be more disgusted than the person next to you - the real problem here is all those moral zealots like you just who think they do. So don't you lecture me about shame.
So, just to make it clear, the "real problem" is not people abusing positions of power to turn human beings into little more than pieces of meat to be pawed at, it's the people who consider that to be wrong. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
I think you are missing the point of what WM and others were saying. If I understand correctly the problem is that we get many witnesses complaining of intangible hurt and harm years later and the accused is automatically regarded as guilty without any evidence or testing. You can call it a kangaroo court or a witchhunt, but somebody claiming to be upset by something 30 years later is not sufficient proof to just convict without trial. Does that make sense?
[quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donald2000[/bold] wrote: I am very worried about people on here trying to minimise the effects that this man has had on people's lives and there has even been one remark that people needed counselling, rather than revenge. That this trusted man (and others) have committed such unspeakable acts should be proof that people have a right to say something, not just told to shut up and go away by normans on this appalling commentary system in the Echo, which is about as insane a reply system as ever walked the earth. People don't need counselling. They need protection from people like Harris and that is what they are now getting. As for the people on here, who have minimised the hurt and grief that this man has caused, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sympathy bypass gone mad.[/p][/quote]What do you mean "unspeakable"? COme on Speak it. WHat you will see (if you think about it) are a series of sporadic claims with no pattern. If Harris actually has a predeliction for young chindren there would be more than one claim - and we wouldn't be seeing the scattergun of ages. He had the opportunity to indulge himself and what we seed is a 40 year old man enjoying the company of what were then considered "dolly birds". THe problem is people like you who immediately reach for the extreme of moral outrage and stop thinking carefully and logically. You are the archetypal man who reads the Sun headline then considers himself fully informed and well read. We had witch burning in the 14 century and while we know a lot more now and think we are far more civilised, the people who were clamouring round the fire thought exactly like you do. You don't win any brownie points by trying to be more disgusted than the person next to you - the real problem here is all those moral zealots like you just who think they do. So don't you lecture me about shame.[/p][/quote]So, just to make it clear, the "real problem" is not people abusing positions of power to turn human beings into little more than pieces of meat to be pawed at, it's the people who consider that to be wrong. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.[/p][/quote]I think you are missing the point of what WM and others were saying. If I understand correctly the problem is that we get many witnesses complaining of intangible hurt and harm years later and the accused is automatically regarded as guilty without any evidence or testing. You can call it a kangaroo court or a witchhunt, but somebody claiming to be upset by something 30 years later is not sufficient proof to just convict without trial. Does that make sense? Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 5

11:24am Tue 5 Aug 14

sotonboy84 says...

noodlesnewman wrote:
Donald2000 wrote:
I am very worried about people on here trying to minimise the effects that this man has had on people's lives and there has even been one remark that people needed counselling, rather than revenge.

That this trusted man (and others) have committed such unspeakable acts should be proof that people have a right to say something, not just told to shut up and go away by normans on this appalling commentary system in the Echo, which is about as insane a reply system as ever walked the earth.

People don't need counselling. They need protection from people like Harris and that is what they are now getting. As for the people on here, who have minimised the hurt and grief that this man has caused, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sympathy bypass gone mad.
rolf is the tip of the iceberg ! you should see the other names being thrown up in operation yew tree , high level people in government , the law sytem , the armed forces , the care system ,etc etc the list go es on / bill mulloney s pie and mash films tell the grim tale , this abuse goes to the top absolutely staggering , or just look up paedo gate it will change the way you vote forever ! check out BEN FELLOWS ! he was abused posing as a 15 year old working for the cook report ! uncovering the cash for questions scandal , abused in the houses of parliament and it was filmed on two hidden cammera s by central tv , all details on line .
Oh you mean Bandwagon Ben, the 'child actor' who was abused by almost every showbiz celebrity and politicians of the 90's? I believe Tom Cruise groped him too and he even accused his agent Syliva Young of pimping him out! The amount of accusations and inaccuracies are laughable.

I guess the most unfortunate event for Bandwagon Ben was when he refused the advances of an important stage producer and because of this alone, his stage career never took off.

He wrote to David Cameron telling him he was going on hunger strike until Kenneth Clarke was arrested. The Metropolitan Police later arrested Ben Fellows for perverting the course of justice as his accusation was fake.

Bandwagon Bullsh***ing Ben. A perfect example of attention seekers that will go to any length to satisfy their own perverse desires without thought of the damage it does to the innocent.
[quote][p][bold]noodlesnewman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donald2000[/bold] wrote: I am very worried about people on here trying to minimise the effects that this man has had on people's lives and there has even been one remark that people needed counselling, rather than revenge. That this trusted man (and others) have committed such unspeakable acts should be proof that people have a right to say something, not just told to shut up and go away by normans on this appalling commentary system in the Echo, which is about as insane a reply system as ever walked the earth. People don't need counselling. They need protection from people like Harris and that is what they are now getting. As for the people on here, who have minimised the hurt and grief that this man has caused, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sympathy bypass gone mad.[/p][/quote]rolf is the tip of the iceberg ! you should see the other names being thrown up in operation yew tree , high level people in government , the law sytem , the armed forces , the care system ,etc etc the list go es on / bill mulloney s pie and mash films tell the grim tale , this abuse goes to the top absolutely staggering , or just look up paedo gate it will change the way you vote forever ! check out BEN FELLOWS ! he was abused posing as a 15 year old working for the cook report ! uncovering the cash for questions scandal , abused in the houses of parliament and it was filmed on two hidden cammera s by central tv , all details on line .[/p][/quote]Oh you mean Bandwagon Ben, the 'child actor' who was abused by almost every showbiz celebrity and politicians of the 90's? I believe Tom Cruise groped him too and he even accused his agent Syliva Young of pimping him out! The amount of accusations and inaccuracies are laughable. I guess the most unfortunate event for Bandwagon Ben was when he refused the advances of an important stage producer and because of this alone, his stage career never took off. He wrote to David Cameron telling him he was going on hunger strike until Kenneth Clarke was arrested. The Metropolitan Police later arrested Ben Fellows for perverting the course of justice as his accusation was fake. Bandwagon Bullsh***ing Ben. A perfect example of attention seekers that will go to any length to satisfy their own perverse desires without thought of the damage it does to the innocent. sotonboy84
  • Score: 6

11:40am Tue 5 Aug 14

Facewagon says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Facewagon wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Donald2000 wrote:
I am very worried about people on here trying to minimise the effects that this man has had on people's lives and there has even been one remark that people needed counselling, rather than revenge.

That this trusted man (and others) have committed such unspeakable acts should be proof that people have a right to say something, not just told to shut up and go away by normans on this appalling commentary system in the Echo, which is about as insane a reply system as ever walked the earth.

People don't need counselling. They need protection from people like Harris and that is what they are now getting. As for the people on here, who have minimised the hurt and grief that this man has caused, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sympathy bypass gone mad.
What do you mean "unspeakable"? COme on Speak it. WHat you will see (if you think about it) are a series of sporadic claims with no pattern. If Harris actually has a predeliction for young chindren there would be more than one claim - and we wouldn't be seeing the scattergun of ages. He had the opportunity to indulge himself and what we seed is a 40 year old man enjoying the company of what were then considered "dolly birds". THe problem is people like you who immediately reach for the extreme of moral outrage and stop thinking carefully and logically. You are the archetypal man who reads the Sun headline then considers himself fully informed and well read. We had witch burning in the 14 century and while we know a lot more now and think we are far more civilised, the people who were clamouring round the fire thought exactly like you do. You don't win any brownie points by trying to be more disgusted than the person next to you - the real problem here is all those moral zealots like you just who think they do. So don't you lecture me about shame.
So, just to make it clear, the "real problem" is not people abusing positions of power to turn human beings into little more than pieces of meat to be pawed at, it's the people who consider that to be wrong. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
I think you are missing the point of what WM and others were saying. If I understand correctly the problem is that we get many witnesses complaining of intangible hurt and harm years later and the accused is automatically regarded as guilty without any evidence or testing. You can call it a kangaroo court or a witchhunt, but somebody claiming to be upset by something 30 years later is not sufficient proof to just convict without trial. Does that make sense?
It does make sense, but I don't think it adequately describes what has happened here. Of course accusations by themselves do not prove guilt, which is why those accused face trial. Harris was tried and found guilty by a jury on the basis of the evidence provided; others who had been similarly accused have been tried and found not guilty. I appreciate the point that, sadly, public opinion often needs little more than an accusation to decide its course, but I don't think that's a reason to dismiss or belittle the experiences of the victims. Let them make their accusations and let those be tested in court.

Something I find particularly distasteful in these discussions is how some people seek to belittle the experiences of the victims. The lady in this article, for example, was sexually assaulted by Harris as a young child; to suggest that to see something wrong with this is merely "prudish", as The Wickham Man states in his first post, is something I could never agree with.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donald2000[/bold] wrote: I am very worried about people on here trying to minimise the effects that this man has had on people's lives and there has even been one remark that people needed counselling, rather than revenge. That this trusted man (and others) have committed such unspeakable acts should be proof that people have a right to say something, not just told to shut up and go away by normans on this appalling commentary system in the Echo, which is about as insane a reply system as ever walked the earth. People don't need counselling. They need protection from people like Harris and that is what they are now getting. As for the people on here, who have minimised the hurt and grief that this man has caused, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sympathy bypass gone mad.[/p][/quote]What do you mean "unspeakable"? COme on Speak it. WHat you will see (if you think about it) are a series of sporadic claims with no pattern. If Harris actually has a predeliction for young chindren there would be more than one claim - and we wouldn't be seeing the scattergun of ages. He had the opportunity to indulge himself and what we seed is a 40 year old man enjoying the company of what were then considered "dolly birds". THe problem is people like you who immediately reach for the extreme of moral outrage and stop thinking carefully and logically. You are the archetypal man who reads the Sun headline then considers himself fully informed and well read. We had witch burning in the 14 century and while we know a lot more now and think we are far more civilised, the people who were clamouring round the fire thought exactly like you do. You don't win any brownie points by trying to be more disgusted than the person next to you - the real problem here is all those moral zealots like you just who think they do. So don't you lecture me about shame.[/p][/quote]So, just to make it clear, the "real problem" is not people abusing positions of power to turn human beings into little more than pieces of meat to be pawed at, it's the people who consider that to be wrong. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.[/p][/quote]I think you are missing the point of what WM and others were saying. If I understand correctly the problem is that we get many witnesses complaining of intangible hurt and harm years later and the accused is automatically regarded as guilty without any evidence or testing. You can call it a kangaroo court or a witchhunt, but somebody claiming to be upset by something 30 years later is not sufficient proof to just convict without trial. Does that make sense?[/p][/quote]It does make sense, but I don't think it adequately describes what has happened here. Of course accusations by themselves do not prove guilt, which is why those accused face trial. Harris was tried and found guilty by a jury on the basis of the evidence provided; others who had been similarly accused have been tried and found not guilty. I appreciate the point that, sadly, public opinion often needs little more than an accusation to decide its course, but I don't think that's a reason to dismiss or belittle the experiences of the victims. Let them make their accusations and let those be tested in court. Something I find particularly distasteful in these discussions is how some people seek to belittle the experiences of the victims. The lady in this article, for example, was sexually assaulted by Harris as a young child; to suggest that to see something wrong with this is merely "prudish", as The Wickham Man states in his first post, is something I could never agree with. Facewagon
  • Score: -3

12:37pm Tue 5 Aug 14

KayleighJade says...

Facewagon wrote:
KayleighJade wrote:
I'm still not convinced that he did it.

I'll probably get lynched but, I just don't.
The jury was convinced that he did. That you remain unconvinced - not having been presented with all the evidence - isn't really important, is it?
Oh crikey sorry for sharing my opinion!

Oh wait, no I'm not. P*ss off.
[quote][p][bold]Facewagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KayleighJade[/bold] wrote: I'm still not convinced that he did it. I'll probably get lynched but, I just don't.[/p][/quote]The jury was convinced that he did. That you remain unconvinced - not having been presented with all the evidence - isn't really important, is it?[/p][/quote]Oh crikey sorry for sharing my opinion! Oh wait, no I'm not. P*ss off. KayleighJade
  • Score: 3

7:12pm Tue 5 Aug 14

eurogordi says...

Look at the voting buttons and The Wickham Man is soaring ahead with his comments which means that many more people who are not commenting here actually agree with him. I would also add that he has contributed what is probably one of the most educated and well informed comments that I have ever seen on this site. I would also like to add further comments based on what others have written.

1. The jury found Rolf Harris guilty - so what? This was a high profile case and we all saw Rolf Harris arriving at the court each day while the tabloids were full of suggestions of what should be done to Mr Harris. Even with the conditions imposed on jurors, please do not tell me that they were completely impartial when making their judgments. Imagine what would have happened if they didn't give the press what was wanted!

2. The evidence - what evidence? "I was six or seven"; "He put his arm around me on Top of the Pops"; "He pinched my bottom when I was in the TOTP audience"; "He touched me while I was getting his autograph"; "He put his hand on my knee while presenting me with my Jim'll Fix It badge on TV"; Does any of this actually add up? I don't think so! At best it is very lukewarm and I really don't see how some of the claims could be taken seriously.

Putting this logically, the majority of alleged assaults seem to have taken place in public places on in front of TV cameras (I realise there were other more serious assaults carried out, allegedly, by Jimmy Savile who, strangely enough, is no longer here to make any defence). If these public events are assault where is, as WM says, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones ... and even the squeaky clean Cliff Richard?

Taking this further, most of the alleged assaults reputedly took place in the sixties and early seventies ... wasn't that the hippy era? Free love and everything that went with it doesn't make unwanted attention right, but it doesn't make it assault either! And I continue to argue that the majority of alleged incidents seem to have taken place in public and I'm sure someone else, not just the "victim", would have felt uncomfortable if something wrong was happening.

Of course, Rolf Harris was accused of not remembering the places he visited and where the assaults supposedly took place. Why should he? After all, he's 84 and anyone who knows anything about the celebrity manager will know that it a constant round of hotels and suitcases, with numerous public appearances in as many towns and cities within a short space of time. Would you remember such a whirlwind of activity?

And then there is the memory, or lack of memory, shown by many of the victims who seem to know what happened, but cannot precisely remember when and where. Let me prove this by a series of questions:

Where were you when:

1) JFK was assassinated
2) Apollo 13 ran into difficulty
3) Decimal money was introduced
4) Harold Wilson resigned as Prime Minister
5) Elvis died
6) Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister
7) The Brighton bombing happened
8) The Hillsborough disaster televised as it happened
9) Tony Blair elected Prime Minister
10) The death of Princess Diana
11) 1999 became 2000
12) 9/11 shocked the entire world

That's 12 and I could go on. I don't expect you to remember all of these, but I imagine everyone will remember at least one! So what has this to do with the alleged victims of Rolf Harris and others?

If we can remember key historic events, where we were and what we were doing, wouldn't we remember traumatic events, including assault, even more clearly? No, I'm not minimising what MAY have happened (please read my earlier comments) but, although I have personally moved, on, I still remember the date, the time and the location.

And that is why I cannot accept many of the vague facts that are being accepted as ultimate truth by so many people - jurors and Daily Echo readers!

Oh yes, and before my comments are bombarded by those who disagree, the vague memories of the "victims" do not contradict the the lack of memory from Rolf Harris. The "victims" are remembering one incident, but the celebrity, as mentioned earlier, would see one public appearance very much the same as another.
Look at the voting buttons and The Wickham Man is soaring ahead with his comments which means that many more people who are not commenting here actually agree with him. I would also add that he has contributed what is probably one of the most educated and well informed comments that I have ever seen on this site. I would also like to add further comments based on what others have written. 1. The jury found Rolf Harris guilty - so what? This was a high profile case and we all saw Rolf Harris arriving at the court each day while the tabloids were full of suggestions of what should be done to Mr Harris. Even with the conditions imposed on jurors, please do not tell me that they were completely impartial when making their judgments. Imagine what would have happened if they didn't give the press what was wanted! 2. The evidence - what evidence? "I was six or seven"; "He put his arm around me on Top of the Pops"; "He pinched my bottom when I was in the TOTP audience"; "He touched me while I was getting his autograph"; "He put his hand on my knee while presenting me with my Jim'll Fix It badge on TV"; Does any of this actually add up? I don't think so! At best it is very lukewarm and I really don't see how some of the claims could be taken seriously. Putting this logically, the majority of alleged assaults seem to have taken place in public places on in front of TV cameras (I realise there were other more serious assaults carried out, allegedly, by Jimmy Savile who, strangely enough, is no longer here to make any defence). If these public events are assault where is, as WM says, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones ... and even the squeaky clean Cliff Richard? Taking this further, most of the alleged assaults reputedly took place in the sixties and early seventies ... wasn't that the hippy era? Free love and everything that went with it doesn't make unwanted attention right, but it doesn't make it assault either! And I continue to argue that the majority of alleged incidents seem to have taken place in public and I'm sure someone else, not just the "victim", would have felt uncomfortable if something wrong was happening. Of course, Rolf Harris was accused of not remembering the places he visited and where the assaults supposedly took place. Why should he? After all, he's 84 and anyone who knows anything about the celebrity manager will know that it a constant round of hotels and suitcases, with numerous public appearances in as many towns and cities within a short space of time. Would you remember such a whirlwind of activity? And then there is the memory, or lack of memory, shown by many of the victims who seem to know what happened, but cannot precisely remember when and where. Let me prove this by a series of questions: Where were you when: 1) JFK was assassinated 2) Apollo 13 ran into difficulty 3) Decimal money was introduced 4) Harold Wilson resigned as Prime Minister 5) Elvis died 6) Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister 7) The Brighton bombing happened 8) The Hillsborough disaster televised as it happened 9) Tony Blair elected Prime Minister 10) The death of Princess Diana 11) 1999 became 2000 12) 9/11 shocked the entire world That's 12 and I could go on. I don't expect you to remember all of these, but I imagine everyone will remember at least one! So what has this to do with the alleged victims of Rolf Harris and others? If we can remember key historic events, where we were and what we were doing, wouldn't we remember traumatic events, including assault, even more clearly? No, I'm not minimising what MAY have happened (please read my earlier comments) but, although I have personally moved, on, I still remember the date, the time and the location. And that is why I cannot accept many of the vague facts that are being accepted as ultimate truth by so many people - jurors and Daily Echo readers! Oh yes, and before my comments are bombarded by those who disagree, the vague memories of the "victims" do not contradict the the lack of memory from Rolf Harris. The "victims" are remembering one incident, but the celebrity, as mentioned earlier, would see one public appearance very much the same as another. eurogordi
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree