Blogs Coffee House

Jailing old celebrities is not a challenge to our current culture

4 July 2014

8:45 AM

4 July 2014

8:45 AM

‘A culture changes by example and a licentious old man being found guilty will help do that,’ says a leader in the Times. Perhaps, but I would be much more impressed if it were a licentious younger man.

We can all moralise away in retrospect about what the BBC and others allowed Rolf Harris CBE or Sir James Savile to get away with. It is easy to attack them when they are old or dead. You still very rarely hear of sex charges against current performers.

[Alt-Text]


I would not dream of suggesting that Russell Brand is a sex criminal, but we know, from his own account, that he has slept with a great many women. He even, with Jonathan Ross, telephoned the elderly actor Andrew Sachs, and they left a message on his answering machine boasting of how Brand had slept with his granddaughter. The BBC broadcast this as comedy. If the wheel of celebrity fortune ever went against Brand, would it be surprising if some of the women who have slept with him decided to accuse him of ‘inappropriate’ acts?

Would the BBC then find the whole thing less funny? I am not saying that Rolf Harris is innocent — I have faith in juries — but I am saying that sexual accusations against old celebrities are not a challenge to the current culture, but an attack on those whose power has waned.

This is an extract from Charles Moore’s Notes in this week’s Spectator.

More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.




Show comments
  • Lizzie Cornish

    I’m saying that Rolf Harris is innocent, for I no longer have faith in juries, nor our legal system, which now deems men to be guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent. FREE ROLF HARRIS! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Support-Rolf-Harris/1503049216593977?fref=ts

  • Guest

    I do not believe Rolf Harris is guilty, Russell, and if you researched it better, you’d probably think the same.

  • Lizzie Cornish

    Please, look on here for FAR more information about Rolf. I do not believe, in any way, that Rolf Harris is a paedophile. I also believe that one of the biggest and most horrendous Miscarriages of Justice has taken place with this trial…. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Support-Rolf-Harris/1503049216593977?fref=ts

  • David

    Any word on Robert Plant, is he going to get arrested for having an affair with 14 year old Lori Maddox in 1972?

  • Poosh

    A good point, I suspect you may be alluding to Hollywood mind you.

  • Sue

    How come every time a woman says something about a man it is believed. So many of these women are ugly and odd looking and I would doubt anything they said just easy money. They throw themselves as they celebrities then cry out years later for money.Should not even have got to Court. His word against theirs.

  • mustdisqus

    In Rolferoo’s case it was one word against the other, yet via the justice by jury system-the juries verdict has been plastered all over the papers as some sort of solid proof. There has been no proof of any activity whatsoever, even the current news of questionable files on his computer showed no proof of browsing directly into suspect websites – they have used the word ‘allegedly’ all too often, a likely desperate attempt to tar him with the same brush as Saville, who met just about every celebrity going.

    Rolf’s letter to the dad of his daughter’s friend, insisted he was sorry about the close relationship after hearing about her willingness for a court case to gain compensation, did not realise she was supposedly so traumatised with their relationship, that she was happy, and that a sexual relationship did not start until she was older. He believed it was consentual. Most media reports have decided to keep the latter out to redeem the shock factor.

    Juries? Faith in the general public? Absolutely not in a world where every company and member in the public is money hungry. Non stop money lending and online or offline gambling is absolutely everywhere, not to mention a large jump in solicitor advertising. We now live in the century of compensation, and as soon as one accuses, 10 or 20 more bandwagon jumpers may get ready to pounce! News from a couple of days ago :- a girl who accused the Oxford Union president of rape
    admitted she consented to their relationship months before she made the
    allegation… many more to come.. so, which celebrity or tv star of old is next?

    There’s nothing like a bit of compensation now, is there? As an accuser, you can even tell your story in court behind a screen so that no one can analyse your authenticity. If you are more willing, you can tell your story to the media. As an accuser, you are seen as the abused which no one would dare question, and you will be supported heavily by the media (especially the tabloids) which will guarantee public support.The most laughable accuser after Rolf was Tonya Lee, her facial expressions were so odd and over the top to heavily suggest lies, yet she was so happy with his measly 5 years.. and.. oops I forgot.. and her thousands of dollars in compensation..
    Please don’t forget that whilst there can be abusers, there can also be just as evil abusers in these cases-ie willing to jump on the bandwagon and also accuse simply for the money, and if there is any possibility that the first case was never that genuine in the first place, its too late anyway. The media and public will destroy the star faster than any time in jail ever could

    • GraveDave

      With such a long winded stitch up conspiracy rant, you sound far more desperate for a reason to carry on keeping up your ‘Rolferoo’ posters.
      The man had child images.

      • mustdisqus

        No. Just the point that in cases like this few are ever fairly judged, and through shock stories, the general public tend to believe anything the tabloids pour out to them. The images were stated as ‘trawled’ and could not have specific ages stamped on them, with ‘indecent posturing’ purely as a matter of opinion by court rather than linked to any specific sexual act. Considering that the mainstream news decided to mention some of the websites they may have been linked to (free advertising?) and that rolf paints and draws the nude body (research?) made this less of an issue

  • balance_and_reason

    Whilst it is quite annoying, the basic life shattering reality is that a small number of males and females with the correct body symmetry , hormone exude ance, endocrine drip and age can generally behave exactly as they like; large numbers of idiotic women gratefully putting up with any outrage the likes of Mr Brand could exert on them and beg for more, ditto with airheads on the other side of the sexual equation…..important thing to remember, and this goes for Brand too, is that the vast majority of these blessed people are airheads ( no effort having been required)…and their attractions wane with age….hence the court cases when established behaviour no longer works out according to plan. I thought this was well known.

  • balance_and_reason

    I think what you mean, Mr Moore, is that in the good old days gentlemen knew how to respectfully behave around women, often carefully marshalled by the families involved (both in the upper and middle classes). The onset of the sixties, free love, immigration, social mobility , socialism et al led to many women deciding that the old ways were wrong; boyfriends were sought from an exciting new range of cultures, colours, and classes…..but four decades later single motherhood, violence on women, absenteeism of dad, laddism, femminism….are our sisters and daughters happier? I guess only they can answer.

    • Liz

      Ah yes the good old days of Victorian sweat shops and child prostitution. When a Gentlemen’s right to rape and beat his wife was enshrined in law.

      • balance_and_reason

        That was reserved for the working classes, didn’t you read Oliver Twist?

      • Inverted Meniscus

        Ignorant rubbish as usual. Look at the Offences against the Person Act of 1828 which for one thing, predates Queen Victoria. You make these ignorant sweeping statements because evidence and truth are just too inconvenient for the likes of you.

        • red2black

          Laws are all well and good, but rape inside marriage does seem to have had ‘a blind eye’ turned towards it. The figures at one point in the Victorian Era regarding prostitution in London had over 14,000 girls aged 12 and under ‘on the books’ infected with venereal diseases. Apparently it wasn’t unusual for working class boys as young as 8 to have ‘mistresses’. Average life-expectancy was, at its lowest point, 19 years for the newly ‘industrialised’ poor.

      • Gwangi

        And when a middle class woman’s right to abuse lower class poor women was sacrosanct, not to mention her right to call men cowards to force them to enlist and die in wars? Middle class woman were WAY better off that working class men – and that includes the hypocrite suffragettes who cared not a jot for ordinary working people so long as theses ladies who lunch could natter about politics and vote. PAH Read some REAL history, sister! Not the femi-propaganda that passes for fact at our dire universities or our gyne-centric BBC

  • http://www.facebook.com/justin.neill.73 Justin Neill

    It is right that child abusers should be rooted out and dealt with to the fullest extent of the law, and if these high profile prosecutions can help protect others then that is a bonus. But is there any possibility that individuals could jump on the bandwagon for fame or financial gain? Michael Le Vell was found not guilty of rape and it was pretty clear that he had been a victim of false accusations by someone who sought to profit from his destruction; there was no comeback on the mother and daughter team who made the allegation, yet f their plan had come to fruition he would be behind bars and probably penniless by now.

    • Gwangi

      Female child abusers, especially mothers, almost always get off scot free of course; they can slap, smack, hit, yell at, belittle, put down kids, diss their fathers to them day in day out, and mess up their heads as well as their bodies.

      [They can even kill their babies (most kids who are killed are killed by women) and then say they’re depressed and their boyfriend was a bully, and hey presto, they get 2 years probation and no time in prison at all].

      Then people have sympathy with them when their kids go bonkers and commit crimes, take drugs, get drunk etc. Tsss. What utter double standards we have in our fatuous little femi-paradise these days…

  • katkel

    If you have any evidence that Russell Brand has committed any kind of crime then I suggest you tell the police, rather than just smear him in your magazine. It may come as a shock to Mr Moore, but sleeping with hundreds of willing women and telling rubbish jokes isn’t actually a crime, unlike sticking you hand in the pants of 8 year old girls. There are lots of people who’s politics and lifestyle I disapprove of, but that doesn’t make them criminals. If any of the young ladies who Mr Brand has dabbled with were to go to the police and allege misconduct then of course they should be supported, but as far as I’m aware nobody has ever made any such claim, and its pretty sad to see the Spectator reduced to such obvious smear tactics against somebody who has dared to stand up to the media. I presume that the likes of Hugh Grant, Steve Coogan and Charlotte Church can expect similar treatment in the coming months.

    • Colonel Mustard

      “If any of the young ladies who Mr Brand has dabbled with were to go to the police and allege misconduct then of course they should be supported”

      What do you mean by “supported”? They would be complainants and their allegations would be unproven until tested in court. The presumption that such complainants are immediately “victims” and designated as such before any trial or conviction is literally prejudicial to the accused, whether it were Russell Brand or anyone else.

    • Jambo25

      He was a self confessed heroine user.

      • William_Brown

        So What?

        • Jambo25

          Look at the first line of Katkel’s posting above. You can read, I take it?

      • katkel

        So he only sleeps with women who are bonafide heroines?

        • Jambo25

          Sorry for the spelling mistake.

    • Cyril Sneer

      Brand was born, that’s criminal enough.

  • Liz

    “He even, with Jonathan Ross, telephoned the elderly actor Andrew Sachs, and they left a message on his answering machine boasting of how Brand had slept with his granddaughter. ”

    Or to put it another (less man-self-obsessed) way: he even, with Jonathan Ross, announced to the world and her grandfather that he had s*x with Georgiana Baille, without her permission.”

    • Gwangi

      Yes, his granddaughter who ran a disgusting and dodgy S&M website and ‘escort’ service! Rather deviously, you make it sound as though she was 8 years old and cuddling a teddy!

  • Charles Hatvani

    RH is an entertainer, and a bloody good one! The “crimes” of this nature should not be acceptable as such after so many years. And dragging an octogenarian to courts for it is blemish on the justice system.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Uniquely in Europe there is no statute of limitation (time limit) for serious sexual offences in the UK. Other European countries have a limit of 12 to 20 years dependent upon the nature of the offence. When Germany abolished compensation payments for uncorroborated abuse cases there was an 80% drop in the number of complaints.

      • Gwangi

        Interesting!
        The UK laws are also deeply silly as they do not differentiate between someone brushing a hand of a 16 year old’s clothed breast (even when she was a groupie – and if she was under 16 apparently she is always innocent. HA!) and some perv fiddling with a 5 year old.

    • Liz

      Sure, what’s criminal about the odd bit of molestation of women and kids without their consent? What’s the world coming to? Not like in the good ol’ days when a chap could stick his fingers where he liked in a filly and there was none of this accountability to them nonce…

      • Colonel Mustard

        Well, it’s been criminal since at least the Offences Against the Person Act of 1828 which consolidated earlier law. And from 1828 to 1841 8 out of 16 men convicted of rape in 63 prosecutions were hanged with a further 3 death sentences commuted and one set aside.

        So you are wrong and your sarcasm is misplaced.

      • Inverted Meniscus

        You are clearly ignorant of the law and much else.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    “Tan me hide when I’m dead, Fred…”

  • Roger Hudson

    There is one problem the courts need to address, the remembering of events forty years ago when these ‘celebrities’ are involved.Human nature means that ‘ordinary people’ remember meeting ‘ a celebrity’ but the reverse is not usually the same, even if groping was involved. I once knew a woman who visited the Savile motorhome parked outside the BBC, voluntarily ( wasn’t impressed), but I doubt if he remembered her.

    • Kennybhoy

      Fair comment. I am confident that the jury delivered a true and just verdict on Harris but the meal that the prosecution and the media coverage made out of his apparent failure to recall events from decades ago was ridiculous…

  • Sean L

    I don’t think anyone should be charged, let alone jailed, merely on the say-so of their accuser, with no corroborating evidence; and they wouldn’t have been in these cases were it not for ideological fashion, feminist zeal. Yet not so much as a squeak from a politician about these outrages. That’s because they’re terrified of being condemned by the media mob as “pervert sympathisers” themselves.

    Thus the chief prosecutor can publicly second guess juries who’ve found men not giulty of rape.. According to her they don’t understand what rape is or means. But how is the notion of consent to be determined at all other than by one’s peers: that which juries are made from?

    This is about mob rule not justice. Similarly the Andy Coulson case. When Lady Di’s phone messages and conversations were intercepted in the 90s everyone published them: it was regarded as entertianment.

    And if it weren’t for The Guardain publishing the Milie Dowler voiciamil hacking story to coincide with the conviction of her murderer, he probably wouldn’t have been charged at all. Because subsequently all victims of phone hacking retrospectively came to be regarded in the shadow of the Millie Dowler murder. But the actual offences were no different in nature from the case of Lady Di in the 90s. If anything hers was more culpable given her status.

    • Andy

      You touch on the nub of it. I have sat in court and watched and listened to cases unfold. I really have a problem if you get a witness who says Harris groped me on the 4th December 1972. Do you remember where you were on the 4th December 1972 ? I don’t. So where is the corroborating evidence for this ? Nowhere to be found. But we are forced to accept that this account is true because the ‘victim’ says it is. As I quoted above if you look at the Bill Roache case the woman under quite strong cross examination (something the Fems and CPS think should be curtailed) was forced to admit that she was unsure the abuse had ever taken place – in other words it was arrant nonsense. We have the recent case in Oxford where someone has had his life trashed by the ‘Sisterhood’ for what turned out to be a consensual shag.

    • Nicholas K

      There was at least one count which related to sustained abuse over a long period, but others, for which I think he was given 6 months, running consecutively (now there’s a change from the usual concurrent sentencing soft touch!) were one off incidents of groping.

      What I find striking about this is how seriously the court seems to take the victims’ trauma at these one off incidents and sentences accordingly. Compare and contrast with sentencing for violent assults, or even worse. You would have to commit some pretty violent crimes to go down for as long as five years (even if you had a string of previous convictions), despite the physical damage inflicted and the psychological trauma that results.

      Recall the recent case of a sentence of only four years for manusalughter by a thug who killed a patently harmless man who objected to a bicycle being ridden on a pavement. The video of the incident shown the offender, who had been an amateur boxer, winding himslef up to deliver a tremendous blow, to a man who still had his hands in his pockets. Yet the sentence was upheld on appeal as not unduly lenient.

      The message from the criminal justice system to those who are victims of appalling violence is, “these things happen, get over it”. Yet assertions of long term trauma from a groping are taken at face value. If the sentence on Rolf Harris is, in the words of today’s Guardian “if anything, lenient” can we expect the Guardian to alter its usual “prison doesn’t work” mantra for other crimes from now on? I’m not holding my breath.

      • Colonel Mustard

        This focus is partly a result of Starmer’s “reforming” work as DPP where he deliberately set out to bring the politics of feminism into the way the rule of law is enforced, pandering to and even addressing pressure groups for which as a civil servant he should have been sacked. But there was a broader UN influence arising from the Beijing Declaration of 1995 which of course is being treated most seriously by those countries which have the least issues over the treatment of women.

        http://www.un.org/en/events/pastevents/pdfs/Beijing_Declaration_and_Platform_for_Action.pdf

        Nowadays furthering causes and lobbying are lucrative industries in their own right so the parameters of “victimhood” will continue to be extended.

  • Roger Hudson

    I think all those who made fun of Mary Whitehouse and derided her attacks on the ‘culture’ at the BBC should repent publicly, now.
    When one saw a 12yr old throwing a pair of nickers on stage at a Garry Glitter Radio One show one should have realised things were getting worse, yet the general mores were being so debased that we let things happen. Perhaps we now have a collective guilt backlash targeted at a few, there were many.

    • Kennybhoy

      Amen. She was a very great lady…

    • Jambo25

      Agree wholly. I remember, as a teenager in Magoo’s Club, in Edinburgh, watching girls fling their knickers at Stevie Marriott of ‘The Small Faces’. It didn’t really occur to me at the time that they were also flinging what was normally inside those knickers at the various bands they went to watch as well. The mid 60s onwards was the high point of ‘groupiedom’.

  • JoRo

    Quite possibly the most ridiculous piece I’ve read. To compare a mature adult engaging in sexual acts with other consenting adults to a convicted paedophile really grasping at straws – amply demonstrated by yr attempts to smear the BBC with the same brush.

    • Kennybhoy

      Everything but ” amply demonstrated by yr attempts to smear the BBC with the same brush.” is fair comment. The BBC DID enable Savile and his ilk. And this while they pontificated, nay pun intended, on the Roman Catholic clerical abuse scandal…

  • Fuck you

    What kind of a moron ‘trusts juries’ in the age of the mass hysteria witch hunt? You’re a moron. Harris could well be perfectly innocent. We will never know. Nobody knows except him and the assortment of people who for some reason waited 50 years to have this ‘dangerous criminal’ stopped.

    • GraveDave

      When it was first alleged he slept with a friend’s twelve year old, he said it takes two to tango. If you had a daughter that age seduced by a neighbour or friend in his forties or fifties, and faced with such a response what would your reaction be then? He was also caught with child images. So it looks pretty much like Rolf condemned himself from the start. Let’s just be thankful kangaroos don’t talk. Sport.

      • Gwangi

        Yes, but it does take two to tango. Do you seriously think all adolescent girls and innocent fluffy pink-cheeked little milkmaids? Much ‘abuse’ is initiated by them, it has to be said. Moreover, it always has been.
        And is it really always ‘wrong’ anyway? Look at Elvis or the Beatles – they all got through quite a few 14 and 15 year old girls.
        Shall we burn them too now? Maybe dig old Elvie up and stick his tarred head on the Tower of Self-righteous victimhood-craving compo-sniffing femi-pomposity that is growing daily up up and away into the salacious sky of self-delusion?

        • GraveDave

          Believe it or not I do see what you are saying. But Rolf also did it on his own doorstep . So what you might ask yourself is
          this -what if it had been your child or daughter?

          • Gwangi

            Yes indeed – but I know a witch hunt when I smell one. This salacious obsession with child abuse exists because scaremongering gets ratings and selles newspapers. But it is utterly hysterical. I know a witch hunt when I smell one! What if a man who was named and shamed as being questioned by police – or even arrested (without anonymity) and thus had his life ruined despite being utterly innocent – was your son eh?
            Also it distracts from the fact that most kids who are abused secksually are abused by people they know – one third by other children, most of the rest by family members especially step-dads or mummy’s latest squeeze. Indeed, single mother families create the context for abuse – and yet the pc propaganda is of how wonderful and super they are! Moreover, all this hysteria will mean kids will be more encaged than they already are by their paranoid and anxious mummies (our age is not rational because it has become so feminised arguably, and the media too).

        • Cyril Sneer

          “Do you seriously think all adolescent girls and innocent fluffy
          pink-cheeked little milkmaids? Much ‘abuse’ is initiated by them, it has
          to be said.”

          What an offensive comment. We’re talking about children having sexual relations with adults. There is only one party here that is culpable, and that is the adult.

    • Kennybhoy

      Fuck you!

      • Gwangi

        You see that’s precisely why I come and look at the Speccie page: the high level of debate. Well done. You win today’s numpty prize – it’s evil Rolf’s collection or pawno. Enjoy!

  • saffrin

    One thing I know about the British justice system, the law courts is not the place to find the truth.

  • Gary Wintle

    I suggest people read the Judge’s sentencing remarks before dismissing the charges.

    • P_S_W

      I don’t think anyone is trying to dismiss the charges.
      Guilty is guilty after trial by a jury of peers.

    • Gwangi

      Yep, and the judge is following fashion as they always do (remember when our overpaid wiggy friends used to send down homos telling them how vile and disgusting they were?).
      Really do you seriously think these people are unaffected by the paedo witch hunt hysteria in our society? That hysteria and paranoia is deeply damaging to children, actually. Far more so than any danger from random paedos.

  • CraigStrachan

    Rolf Harris, for all that he has been found guilty, should not be sent to jail at the age of 84 for decades-old crimes.

    It serves no practical purpose. Britain should consider introducing an upper-age limit for incarceration, like some countries on the Continent have.

    • nourredines

      @CraigStrachan,
      What about the victims who are in an open prison for the rest of their lives, you do not understand the violation of your teen years until you experience the vile thing.
      If it was your sister you may not write what you wrote.

      • CraigStrachan

        I’m not sure that being the victim of a sexual assault equates to a life sentence. That seems to me to underestimate the resilience of victims, and their capacity to recover and lead normal lives.

        It does seem that that Harris has a substantial fortune, and the guilty verdict will make it hard to defend compensation claims, so his victims do have other avenues of recourse.

        • nourredines

          Your mind is only focus on money, unfortunately for some,money does not solve all the problems these two individuals have committed on some young and innocent victims

          • Andy

            No but the money is part of the problem with all of this. Seems to be a given that anyone can make up an allegation against Savile and claim from his estate, and he has been convicted of nothing.

            • nourredines

              That’s where you are wrong, it is not the money but the crime committed who is the problem and you only have what the judges decide to let us know, wait to read the hidden stories of how the judges came to pass the sentences.

            • Terry Field

              The untested anti-Savile stuff is almost funny in its disconnected absurdity – which paedos are actually being protected by these high-profile show-trials.
              Its like Belgium and Dutroux – so many escaped from detection.
              And WHY have the 80 odd moslems (and maybe others also) who were identified as being in the same activity as the Oxford sex-groomers -by a government law officer on the BBC but not subsequently repeated ( – I wonder why?!?) not been before the courts – oh lets work that one out shall we – ten points for a correct guess.

          • CraigStrachan

            Perhaps not, but all their problems are not solved by jailing an 84-year-old. Neither does it serve the purpose of removing a dangerous offender from society – there is no suggestion that Harris has been an active offender for decades.

            • nourredines

              Hey! when they were younger they abused of their status, well now they can reap the consequences and their bad behavior, let them try other establishment for some times

              • CraigStrachan

                Not sure who the “they” are. I’m talking about Rolf Harris, not Max Clifford, who is in his sixties.

            • Fergus Pickering

              Well, yes, there is more than a suggestion. He was looking at kiddyporn last year.

              • CraigStrachan

                His last “contact” offence was more than 20 years ago.

          • Terry Field

            29 years old – well past a point of personal decision making, surely.

        • Dogzzz

          You are clearly not a victim of childhood sexual abuse then.

          I have seen first hand, being married to a woman who was sexually abused by her own father, how it IS a lifelong prison sentence.

          • CraigStrachan

            Well, I can certainly see how abuse by a parent, presumably on-going over a lengthy period, could be psychologically very damaging. You have drawn your own conclusions about what I clearly am not, and I will leave you to them.

            It remains my view that imprisoning Harris serves no practical purpose at this juncture, regardless.

            • GraveDave

              It’s about sending out a message.

              • Terry Field

                Liberal types are noble with other people’s blood.

                • GraveDave

                  He’s had a good run. But it’s no skin off my nose what you do with him, whether it’s going to prison for a few years or sweeping the streets until he drops into the gutter.
                  Its not like he’s going to lose his fortune is it.

                • Terry Field

                  I read that the ‘damaged’ are going to go for as much of his fortune as they can lay hands on by way of civil actions.
                  I am more charitably disposed to Mr Harris than you are.

            • Terry Field

              Indeed it is a monstrous violence.

      • saffrin

        Most if not all of those ‘victims’ were groupies.
        Different times different culture.
        These charges have been brought due to the compensation culture.
        These ‘victims’ aren’t looking for justice, just an excuse to claim hard cash.

        • nourredines

          I tend to disagree with your comment, these charges have been brought because today the victims have a better chance to be heard in the court of law than 20-30-40 years ago, the prouf is in the sentences, not the compensation because if the victims are found lying they will not get any compensation and it is the judges only who establish the amount of compensation not people hoping to get compensation if i say something now after all they cannot verify 20-30-40 years ago, that’s where i wrote above, we only know what it is permitted for us to read but in court and between judges and solicitors they are things who are better to be hidden for the time being.

        • Terry Field

          Dead on.

        • Kennybhoy

          Utter sh**te!

      • Terry Field

        Oh really!

    • Dogzzz

      Rolf Harris should never, ever be let out of Jail. He should rot for the crimes he has committed.

      • Gwangi

        He groped – ie touched – girls inappropriately, the same way many drunken young women grope young men every Friday night in British town centres. Unlesss and until they are arrested and convicted, I shall believe the law to be institutionally misandrist.

        Rolf did not raype children or even do much other than touching, I simply refuse to believe it ruined anyone’s life. I small COMPO all over this, I’m afraid. £52000 for each woman who claims Rolfie touched their knee in 1973. Well, s;betterthan working for an honest living, eh girls?

        Convenient for the plods who want good publicity and more convictions in an age where crime is falling internationally. Ticks all dem little diversity boxes too ma’am.

        Funny though – almost as much domestic abuse happens against men as against women, and yet how many women get convicted? Victimhood is adored by many women and feminists too. That should not be pandered to. Men and women should be equal in law.

        • GraveDave

          You make some good points but Rolf did himself no favours from the start.

        • Terry Field

          He is sacrificed to the New puritanism’.

        • ButcombeMan

          The BBC reports say that what he did was invasive or penetrative, not confined to external touching. The BBC said that upto now it had not reported this detail.

          Frankly if this had been my 8 year old granddaughter or my daughter years ago, I would be justifiably angry/

          Your “utterly trival” in another message, seems to be wrong. Maybe you will retract it?

        • Kennybhoy

          Cunnus!

    • Fergus Pickering

      I think you are guilty of ageism. What does it matter how old he is?

      • CraigStrachan

        Well, generally speaking, imprisonment is supposed to serve the purpose of removing people from society who pose a threat of re-offending. There is no such threat in the case of an 84-year-old whose last offence was a quarter-century ago.

    • Kennybhoy

      Craig. You are one of my favourite posters around here man. But this is utter sh++e! :-(

      • Gwangi

        Can we also send Germaine Greer to jail? She wrote a book recommending the seduction (ie raype) of young boys (aged 11+) by women. The Boy. Check it out, baby! Now if a man had written that…

      • Jambo25

        Crag, as a raving Cybernat, you are one of my least favourite posters on here but in the vast majority of cases you are spot on in this.

    • Liz

      No practical purpose apart from giving his victims justice and putting the fear of god into a lot of spectator readers.

      • Gwangi

        No doubt you are cobbling together a false accusation against some poor bloke even as we speak.
        You really are disgusting and vile to even insinuate that all those posting here are child abusers. Sicko.

        • Colonel Mustard

          She appears to hate and stereotype all men as oppressive rapists and abusers but the extreme misandry of many strident feminists is not recognised in the same way as the mild misogyny of many males who encounter it.

          • Gwangi

            What is worrying and will end in tears for sure is the way our criminal justice system seems to be desperate to follow the orders of such ‘politically correct’ feminist loudmouths. Our police are p[c plods who ignore many crimes because they prefer to arrest men for texting their ex-girlfriends (so-called harassment, usually entrapped) and post rude words on Twitter or Facebook (where victimhood-craving professional feminists provoke thjem into it then deliberately choose not to block them). Snide, spiteful, nasty little spoilt girls are now in charge on the direction of the law and the police. Utterly wrong.

  • Timhole

    And after Russell Brand had phoned up an elderly man to tell him he had **** his grand daughter and wondered out loud if that news might have caused him to commit suicide, the BBC invited him onto Newsnight to discuss how to make the world a better place.

    • con

      are you saying someone did commit suicide?

    • Terry Field

      Well compared. An absurd world. Justice is Russian Roulette theses days.

  • Kitty MLB

    Russel Brand maybe a loathsome man who is generous with
    his charms…well some might like his fame.
    But its not a good idea to succumb to a witch hunt and assume
    everyone is guilty.
    Saville and Harris were also peadophiles..

    • Colonel Mustard

      See Liz’s comments above calling for witch hunts in the p*rn and fashion industries.

      • Liz

        Ah the old “rapey men are a figment of the Imagination like witches” meme.

        • Colonel Mustard

          No, but witch hunts are witch hunts and the lonely old women who were persecuted, tortured and burnt alive or hanged because of them and because of the sort of alarmist stereotyping people like you peddle were not figments of the imagination but real people.

  • http://twitter.com/WinstonCDN WinstonCDN

    A heroin addict’s words are irrelevant

  • Gwangi

    Sorry, and I know the usual shrieking hysterics will have a fit of the vapours when I say this, but what Rolf Harris did was utterly trivial, The claim of some victimhood-craving compo-sniffing pity party merchants that their lives have been ruined by some bloke brushing against their 16 year old breasts in 1977 is utterly absurd.

    Many men, me included, have had our buttocks groped by drunken leery women when younger. Can I contact the police now then and claim I was assaulted? Or does the law only exist for opportunistic greedy women to make a few quid? I see through it like a palace of glass, I’m afraid, but then I do know how women can play the victim to get what they want.

    The law is criminalising ordinary human behaviour – correction, ordinary MALE behaviour. Women are free to seduce, grope, leer and abuse at will, even with the underage, and nothing happens. Double standards or what eh?

    Of course Harris and Brand and NOT Jimmy Savile. Like comparing a petty thief with a murderous gangsta really (and not even a thief – Brand’s women are all willing…)

    • Andy

      Oh dear you are not allowed to say that !! However I think the case of Bill Roache should make us all stop and think. One of his accusers was forced to admit, under cross examination, that she could not be sure the abuse had ever happened – in other words it was dreamt up or ‘planted memory’. And yet this woman has not been named nor prosecuted. Take the case of young Ben Sullivan. His reputation has been ruined by women jumping up and down and screaming rape, when it was consensual bonking. Again why have these women not been named and prosecuted ?

      As to Savile he was a creep (and I met him on a number of occasions) but I am not so sure he was the monster that is being made out. What I see is the smell of money bring people out of the woodwork. The Law use to require facts to gain a conviction but it seems that now a man (and it is usually men) are guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent. Profoundly troubling.

      • Timhole

        Wait, raping sick children in a hospital was not monstrous enough for you?

        • Andy

          Wait, it is ‘ALLEGED to have raped sick children’. As far as I am aware he was not convicted of rape. Please show me where he was.

          Like I said the Law use to require facts, but it now seems this is not the case. Your comment merely proves the point.

          • Timhole

            You can’t convict a dead guy. Nice try.

            • Andy

              No and fortunately for you you cannot Libel the dead either. Does not alter the fact that these are merely allegations and can never be proved. You standing up and saying ‘Jimmy Savile raped me’ does not make it a fact.

              • Timhole

                Are you a holocaust denier too?

                • Andy

                  I have merely asked you for evidence, for facts. As I pointed out you standing up and saying ‘Jimmy Savile raped me’ does not make it a fact. Where is the ‘Presumption of Innocence’ in all your zeal ? Or do we now have a system where you are guilty until you can prove you are innocent ? You should be very careful stepping down this road.

                • Timhole

                  Hitler was never convicted of genocide against the Jews. So, are you saying that these are similarly only allegations?

                • ButcombeMan

                  Whenever a strident debate goes on long enough, some idiot brings up the holocaust

                • P_S_W

                  No, because other ranking members of his regime were.

                  Not to mention archive footage, mass graves, etc.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  There was credible evidence however and the issue here is the availability of hard evidence. That is how our judicial system works, or at least, how it used to work.

                • Conway

                  We should all be very careful of stepping down that road, but it’s the way we are going unless we get out of the EU. Corpus juris (the continental Napoleonic Code), which is taking increasing precedence over our Common Law, is based on precisely that. This needs to be pointed out at every opportunity.

                • Jambo25

                  Actually, highly credible stories of very bad behaviour by Savile were going the rounds over a very long period of time and people did make serious complaints about him to police, employers etc. The problem was that powerful people seemed to protect him. The same was almost certainly true of Cyril Smith.

                • Andy

                  Where is your evidence ‘that powerful people seemed to protect him’ ? Or is it a case that the complaints themselves, when investigated or looked at in detail, were just not credible ? Like I said I knew Savile (very slightly) and he was in my view a ghastly man, but that doesn’t make him guilty of anything. I just feel very uneasy at how all of this is being used. It sort of smacks of cries of witchcraft in earlier times. Normal measures of guilt are being casually set aside.

                • Jambo25

                  We now know that complaints against Savile were being made decades before his death. We also know that the police turned some of those complainants away and simply refused to investigate the complaints. We also know that a man with no medical, psychiatric or prison qualifications was put in charge of a major state institution largely as a strike breaker and anti-union shill. We also know that Savile scarcely tried to deny his nature o many he came into contact with but nothing was done and that is because he had some form of protection if only through passive non action.

              • Dogzzz

                No, true, but on the balance of available evidence, there is very little doubt at all. In fact the massive mountain of evidence against Savile, makes the evidence collected against Harris look tiny and circumstantial by comparrison. Including the list of names of victims and ratings of them behind a wall in a record shop frequented by Savile…

                “Stunned officers chipped away plaster at a ­record shop wall and unveiled a hidden list of names thought to belong to young victims of Jimmy Savile.

                The vile register, which contained the names, ages and a disgusting ratings system seemingly used to mark their sexual performance, was scrawled on a secret wall buried behind layers of wallpaper and plaster.

                A source revealed: “The wall looked like something straight out of a horror movie. There were lists and lists of names of the victims – it’s a shocking discovery.”

                The list of girls and young women is thought to identify ­hundreds of potential new victims abused at the hands of the BBC DJ and it raised fears Savile was at the centre of a celebrity paedophile ring.

                As the specialist officers ripped away the layers from the wall, the names of up to 200 new ­people they believe he and accomplices attacked or planned to attack during the 1980s and 1990s were ­gradually revealed.”

                Savile was a monster and his vile acts were systematically covered up by a LOT of people in the establishment.

                He could not possibly have done what he did for 5 decades without a large conspiracy of silence from the authorities

                • Jambo25

                  Look at which politicians and cops Savile was friendly with.

                • http://adventuresintimetravel.com Time Traveller

                  And to think that when I read it, I dismissed this lurid report as hyperbolic bollocks.

                  What a fool I am, eh?

                  So, do tell, what happened next?

    • Gwangi

      And I have just read on Metro online that Nigerian conmen and women who stoleed millions from the elderly and disabled in a lottery scam (you know – you have won millions but need to send us £10k then another £20k then more to unlock it…) have been jailed for only 18 months. It almost makes it worth running a scam if you just get that – after all, I am sure they have lots of the ill-gotten cash stashed away for when they get out in 9 months…
      What purpose is served by locking up Rolf Harris, even if he was a groper?

      • Fergus Pickering

        The cause of justice is served.

        • Terry Field

          Cods

    • Sean Lamb

      If you are senile or suffering from dementia you are not generally considered capable of defending yourself and hence don’t have to stand trial.

      I wonder if the incident is so trivial and so long ago that there is not the slightest reasonable chance that you could recall it, you should be also be considered mentally unfit to answer that particular charge?

      I mean if you can’t remember where or what you were doing in 1973 on an unspecified date which might in fact have been in 1976, how on earth are you expected to defend yourself.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Women are rapidly becoming a new victim group just by being women so the sentence was undoubtedly calculated as risk averse to obviate “outrage” from feminist agenda pressure groups should it have been deemed too lenient. The rule of law is no longer impartially enforced and justice no longer weighs the scales with a blindfold on. It is all heavily politicised. Personally I think locking up an 84 year old man with a previously unblemished record (?) is barmy bordering on vindictive. Meanwhile young thugs who punch a complete stranger in the street, causing his death for You Tube kicks, get off lightly.

      There was plenty of nasty direct evidence against Saville in the reports but it was also apparent how much hearsay there was and also “evidence” of the “I was alone with him in the room and I felt uncomfortable” or “I always knew he was a wrong ‘un” sort. The CPS eagerly trawl that now to “build a picture” since the justice system is focussing on victims rather than complainants, provided they are in the category ‘vulnerable’, which now includes all women, despite the fact that they are also ‘equal’.

      • Timhole

        Your response screams red piller. I suppose you think groping young women is a fine and dandy part of life?

        • Colonel Mustard

          You can suppose what you like but I did not write anywhere in my comment that I think that.

          Go and find somewhere else to wave your flaming torch and pitchfork.

          PS I had to google “red piller” to find out what it was.

          • Gwangi

            Yes, what the F is ‘red piller’? Sounds like a Spanish stew or something.

            • Colonel Mustard

              In a nutshell it seems to be a term for men who feel they are “victims” of misandry, which as we all know doesn’t exist.

        • Fergus Pickering

          Groping youg women is one thing. Groping little girls is another thing. Or do you think seven is old enough? This si not addressed to you, Colonel.

      • Fergus Pickering

        But Colonel, he didn’t have an unblemished record. He just hadn’t ben caught.

        • Colonel Mustard

          You can’t prosecute someone for an old offence and at the same time use that old offence as evidence of previous bad character in the same trial (although I’m sure New Labour’s CPS might like to)! He hadn’t been caught therefore until the point of conviction he had an unblemished criminal record.

          I understand that “someone” has now lodged a complaint that the sentence was too lenient and it has been referred to the AG for review. You can bet the “someone” is a feminist lobby group or mouthpiece.

          British justice has become an extension of political campaigning.

          • Andy

            It is astonishing how some people seem unable to grasp the simple concept of the Presumption of Innocence.

            • Colonel Mustard

              It is certainly worrying. Old tenets of English Common Law established for centuries are being rapidly sidelined in a way that causes real concern for the provision of impartial justice in this country. Much rot (or perhaps rust – a red corrosion?) set in when Starmer was placed as DPP by New Labour and set about “reforming” on behalf of (mainly feminist) pressure groups and politicising the rule of law, also “leading beyond authority” by getting involved in the promotion of and lobbying for legislation rather than just presiding over its supposedly impartial prosecution. He should have been sacked at once for that but for some extraordinary reason the “Conservative” AG Grieve kept him in post.

              Starmer is now advising Labour and the Shadow AG Thornberry on “radical justice reforms” (be afraid, be very afraid). So much for the impartiality he paid not even lip service to whilst in post as he shows himself to be a true child of Labour politics. Given Thornberry’s repulsively bullying personality we should all be worried by these developments.

              As mentioned elsewhere in this thread the creeping influence of the Napoleonic Code via the EU is also a contributor to the undermining of Common Law.

              But what is most worrying is that those who should be the custodians and protectors of the best parts of our justice system are now at the forefront of degrading and undermining it in the pursuit of political dogma.

              • Inverted Meniscus

                As I said to Andy. Socialism is at the root of this creeping towards a system of guilty even if proved innocent. Socialists believe that: “I am orally pure and unimpeachable because I am a socialist and whomsoever I say is guilty is guilty and I will decide the punishment”.

            • Inverted Meniscus

              Socialism Andy, socialism. “I am morally pure and whoever I say is guilty is guilty”.

    • Jambo25

      Spot on. Harris was/is crass and nasty but to conflate his behaviour with Savile and some others is utterly insane.

      • Timhole

        He groped an 8 year old, are you kidding?

        • Jambo25

          You must have had a very sheltered life to think that that’s worth nearly 6 years inside for an 84 year old. Savile was a dangerous and possibly murderous predator, according to some stories. Harris was a dirty old man.

          • Kennybhoy

            The acts commited by Harris against weans were way beyond dirty old man stuff…

        • Terry Field

          Its not desirable but not even in the same league as Pedos. You lack judgement.
          And I bet you are a liberal who thinks buggery is absolutely fine, don’t you?

          • Kennybhoy

            “And I bet you are a liberal …”

            Oh ffs get a fracking grip man!

            • Terry Field

              I note you do not deny it
              “Methinks he doth protest too much”
              Avoir un bon jour.

            • Terry Field

              No denial I note.

    • Timhole

      Groping children (or anyone who objects) is NOT ordinary for any human with a conscious, male or female. One of the girls was 8 years old for f sake and you’re calling it trivial?

      • Gwangi

        From what I heard, most of those he ‘groped’ (i.e. brushed his hand against their clothed breasts) were teenagers, mostly 16+. These women now bleat and wail and say how it ruined their life. A great excuse for them being failures maybe? Blame Rolf.
        So what did he do to the 8 year old? Is that proven? The news reports I heard solely mentioned teenage girls.

    • Gary Wintle
    • recklessmonkey

      Groping 7 year old children and tongue kissing other young girls against their will is trivial to you? I pray you don’t, and never do have children.

  • Mark Walley

    Can we throw out names of other celebrities we don’t like as well and imply that we should categorise then with Rolf Harris. I’ve never liked that Will.I.Am, and I’ve always thought George Osbourne is a bit of a ladies man, so we should probably write an article that associates him with Jimmy Saville.

    Seriously, this is twaddle. Please use all means to encourage people to come forward if they’ve been sexually assaulted or abused. Please criticise Russell Brand’s dumb (non-)political ideas. Don’t try and imply guilt of heinous evil by association just because you don’t like some immoral womaniser.

    • davidofkent

      Who is George Osbourne? I know who the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, but I’ve never heard of George Osbourne.

      • Mark Walley

        Good point David, I shall retract my comment entirely because I added a U to George Osborne’s name. Sorry about that.

    • Kennybhoy

      “Don’t try and imply guilt of heinous evil by association just because you don’t like some immoral womaniser.”

      Well said. I find Moore’s coverage of this whole issue very creepy indeed…

  • Paul Scott

    Oh come off it, there’s no similarity at all between Russell Brand shagging consenting adults, and the paedophile activities of Savile or Harris.

    • Sean Lamb

      Yes well, perhaps 20 years later they might decide they weren’t consenting!

      • davidofkent

        And that is precisely the point. Although there is no limit to delay in criminal cases, there used to be something of an assumption that justice delayed is justice denied. If you wait until a man is in his 80s and clearly rich before accusing him of ‘something nasty in the woodshed’, something is not right. I foresee an appeal or two coming on.

        • Andy

          An appeal wont do him any good. In the current climate it does seem that if you are accused of any sexual offence you are Guilty until you can prove otherwise. This hysteria is getting out of hand.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Dare I say it, as a woman, I’m not sure that touching the boobs or bum of a teenager is that serious. Unpleasant, yes, but serious? Life-changing? Of course anything more than that is most definitely out of order.

            • Conway

              A similar comment was made by my other half when listening to the news.

              • Damaris Tighe

                There certainly seem to be some delicate shrinking violets around …

                • Jambo25

                  My wife thought so too.

            • Paul Scott

              You can read the judge’s summing up comments online. It also involved him fingering & licking the girl’s vagina. She was left mentally scarred by the experience.

              • Fergus Pickering

                If that girl were my daughter I would want him tortured and then burned to death.

                • Kennybhoy

                  Amen…

                • Benny Reid

                  Hallelujah!

                • Benny Reid

                  Do you want his hands and tongue burned first and then the rest of the body or just burn the body all at once?

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Ah, I see you are not familiar with a conditional sentence. I am not the girl’s father ergo I do not wish any of these things.

                • Benny Reid

                  …….but hypothetically if it was your daughter would you have a stake burning or just have him barbecued?

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Now you are just being silly. But I do think that a part of Justice is to institutionalise revenge.

                • Benny Reid

                  Not silly but sarcastic yes, and that’s why there’s prison and capital punishment it’s a form of revenge or justice whichever you choose to call it for your crimes…..but take the law into your own hands and that’s being a vigilante because I don’t foresee the justice system torturing or burning to death criminals so…..

                • Fergus Pickering

                  No. Neither do I. I was suggesting torture and burning in a purely private capacity.

                • Benny Reid

                  As I said vigilantism

                • Colonel Mustard

                  As I understand it RH wrote to the parents in abject apology for his misdeeds and they did not at that time raise any complaint against him. So I guess they did not feel as you would.

                  I was astonished to read recently that the parents of one of the Braemar Hill murderers had on his release from prison forgiven him for his participation in the wanton murder of their son.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Was this the seven-year-old?

              • Damaris Tighe

                That, of course, goes under the heading of ‘anything more than that is most definitely out of order’, as I said.

              • Sean Lamb

                ” It also involved him fingering & licking the girl’s vagina.”
                One of the complainants – the same complainant who continued having a sporadic affair with him into her late 20s.

                Doubtless child sexual abuse experts will immediately tell me that is precisely what “survivors” do, but as someone who was groped by a dirty old man when I was 14 I can assure you I never had the slightest desire to see this individual ever again, nor was my childhood/innocence taken from me, nor did I embark on a lifetime of drug and alcohol abuse. I felt quite agitated for a couple of hours and then went home in time for dinner. I was never in any doubt that my parents would believe me if I told them, which is why I didn’t tell them – because I thought they would make too much fuss.

                That was the only complainant who had allegations of any gravity and for the life I don’t see how anyone could with confidence exclude Harris’s counter narrative: that a consensual affair began when she was 18 and continued until she was 29.
                Obviously she is very bitter about the relationship, but she could conceivably be bitter under either scenario.

                • Jackthesmilingblack

                  Jailbait chicks with retrospective suppressed dormant memory: Slammer time beckons Britisher pals especially for those with serious wealth. Fly that paedophile-crazy coop sooner rather than later. Because a criminal record will most assuredly compromise your chances of a friendly reception from your prospective host nation. And don`t register with the Embassy or leave a forwarding address with anybody, especially ANYBODY.

                • George Smiley

                  Unlike in the United States of America or Canada, conviction in absentia is lawful (legal) in England (and Wales), so doing a runner (running away) without leaving a forwarding address does not stop a jury or a magistrate from finding or judging you guilty, and thus not stopping yourself from getting a new or an additional (extra) criminal conviction record. Been watching too much Courtroom drama from the wrong Country, have you?

                • Cyril Sneer

                  Jack pretends he is British, but no one believes him.

                • George Smiley

                  I know, I was the one (under a previous pseudonym) who smoked and ratted him out in the first place!

                • George Smiley

                  I know, I was the one (under a previous pseudonym) who smoked and ratted him out in the first place! He is about as British as a certain American actor (worded as such courtesy of Disqus) in Mary Poppins!

                • Jackthesmilingblack

                  Cyril, didn`t I warn you that insanity was contagious?
                  Trust me I`m not British by choice. If only some other nation would step up to the plate. One that did not stand accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, involvement in torture … How about it Eire, Iceland …?

                • Jackthesmilingblack

                  You can run but you can`t hide. Having a few sleepless nights was we? Hate crime is a slammer time offense.

                • George Smiley

                  There is definitely no such thing as “hate crime” as such as a crime in eiher your Country (Japan) or mine (England), and I am afraid that you have to be a little bit more specific, my Japanese friend!

            • Bernard from Bucks

              I agree, but you see, there’s a wiff of compensation in the air.

          • Conway

            The onus on the accused to prove innocence is the corpus juris (ie continental Napoleonic Code) way of doing things. Shame it wasn’t just a trading arrangement as we were told at the beginning.

            • Andy

              Indeed.

        • Dogzzz

          Many of Savile’s victims did complain to the police at the time, and the police laughed such allegations off.

          • Roger Hudson

            The police didn’t laugh, they knew he was a pervert, but the ‘powers that be’ stopped any action.

            • Fergus Pickering

              Oh come. The police were paid off.

            • Kennybhoy

              The police are part of the “powers that be”.

              • Jambo25

                There was an interesting Channel 4 documentary last Autumn into the Cyril Smith case. A retired Greater Manchester based policeman related how, while, he was investigating Smith he was visited by a couple of Special Branch cops, up from London, who ordered him to hand over whatever file of results on the Smith investigation he had.

        • Roger Hudson

          Actually the sentence for each offence is light compared to the possible maximum, I think the use of some accumulation is quite appropriate and this case should be a warning to all people currently in a position where the young could be abused by them.

      • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

        This is a real problem . So it seems to me.

        Whenever the ‘victims’ of historic abuse are heard they always respond in a way that makes me suspect they may have been coached.

        I cant think of an example.
        It is nearly 2 am so that’s my excuse.

    • Fergus Pickering

      How do you know they are all adults?

    • Fergus Pickering

      I think there is considerable similarity. And how do you know how old they were?

  • http://t.co/rXjomKpfUv JP Janson De Couet

    This one came straight form Lynton by messenger bike didn’t it?

    • P_S_W

      Yep, I’m sure Lynton Crosby is out to clear Rolf Harris’ name as a favour to a fellow Aussie.

  • Anton

    I don’t understand why it always the has-beens and terminally uncool that the bobbies go after. Are they just going for low-hanging fruit? Did none of those still regarded a fairly “with it” after the passing of time get up to any hanky panky?

    What I do not understand is how you can convict someone on the say-so of other people without any evidence. How often have I read of serious high-profile cases falling apart because a niggling discrepancy in the police evidence. But in the cases against these untalented old farts there is no evidence at all, as far as I can see. Can someone explain to me how the British legal system works in these instances please? Has it always been so?

    • Colonel Mustard

      Hard to say. The requirement is/was to prove the offence was committed beyond a reasonable doubt and there is no bar against uncorroborated evidence being tested in court. Saville is dead so his “trial and conviction” requires no standard of evidence or even a court of law. As I understand it Harris incriminated himself by apologising for his acts which would have corroborated the complainant’s evidence.

    • Dogzzz

      There was clearly enough evidence according to the Jury, who unanimously
      convicted him on all counts. Perhaps you would care to actually read
      the summing up from the Judge before you make such ill-informed
      comments.

      • Anton

        Sorry, I was not trying to making ill-informed comments. From what I have read, I did not really seen any hard evidence so I was wondering how the court arrived at the verdict. However? Colonel Mustard seems to have elucidated the matter. My discomfort was based on the fact that I have often read about cases (murder, terrorism) where it is almost certain the people in question would be prosecuted then it all comes to nothing because the police neglected to follow a certain procedure, for example.

        • Kennybhoy

          “…I have often read about cases…”

          Beware of what you read about trials and court processes in the media. Oh and that goes double for what you see in TV dramas…

        • Colonel Mustard

          I don’t think I have really elucidated it as I am unsure myself about a Law Lords ruling that has (apparently) placed the onus on a defendant to prove innocence in uncorroborated accusations of sexual abuse. Because of the self-incriminating evidence in the Harris case I’m not sure it is a good example of that rather drastic abandonment of Common Law.

      • Jambo25

        Harris and other defendants have clearly been ‘dangled’ in public sight, by the CPS, as bait in ‘fishing expeditions’. Name a person through a specimen charge and hope that other ‘victims’ come forward. A number of these cases have already failed but that comes too late for the defendants.

    • Kennybhoy

      Read the trial coverage and the judge’s comments…

  • ButcombeMan

    How about flushing out those in politics whose similar or worse acts (to Harris & Saville) have been allegedly covered up?

    I am reading all the newspaper reports, yet they must know what I know (or think I know). They are writing all around the issues without coming out with the allegations or even some of the stuff that is out there to be found on the internet, true or false..

    Where is the “missing file”? It would be truly astonishing if it had been “destroyed”.

    Much more likely to be in a safe in one of the Security Service buildings.

    Charles Moore is I believe, indulging in distraction, throwing us chaff. I do not like Brand but it is not right to brand (sorry) him in this way.

    Why, is Moore throwing us “chaff”?

    I am deeply suspicious.

    • Jambo25

      I entirely agree. These B and C list celebs of yesteryear are being thrown to the public as distractions from other , much nastier things, which may well have been happening in the 70s and 80s. There have been stories about very important establishment figures carrying out awful acts and apparently being protected by the authorities, including the Metropolitan Police (surprise surprise).
      Many of the reports were of the internet, tin-foil hat variety but there were enough more reputable reports and hints in the MSM as well as the wilder shores of the internet to really get the media much more interested. Savile hardly went out of his way to hide his predelictions, over a 50 year period, yet he was, apparently, untouchable. Look at the rather odd list of people he was friendly with: politicians, cops etc, to work out why. One of Thatcher’s closer aides was a known paedophile yet nothing was done. There were widespread rumours of the activities of a PM, for god’s sake: even rumours, circulating amongst the press pack, that cross party, backstage deals had been done to keep each others’ very dirty laundry covered. Apart from the odd hint in magazines such as ‘Private Eye’ very little from the press

      • ButcombeMan

        “Many of the reports were of the internet, tin-foil hat variety”

        Agreed, they are. But the internet did not exist in current form when I first heard the rumours,

        They used to come thick and fast out of Special Branch.

        • Jambo25

          I was hearing some very interesting stories as far back as the 70s from a couple of friends who worked in the old Fleet Street. I heard similar stories and developments of them over the years from a couple of people I knew in politics. Something very nasty was going on, in this country, during the 70s, 80s and 90s and we haven’t been told the truth of it so far.

          • ButcombeMan

            El Vinos was full of such tales in the 80s and I was just looking at the history of the Elm Guest House.

            It is said that the raid was done by Special Branch and the SPG, under the Prevention of Terrorism legislation. Odd that, if true.

            • Jambo25

              I first started hearing about this stuff from an old friend who worked for MGN. It started with a story of a deal between Tory and Labour in the early/mid 70s not to name each others’ black sheep. A very prominent Tory was given protection in return for the same privilege being extended to a very well known Labour MP. Both, apparently, were known for a very unhealthy interest in young men and boys.
              I was dubious when I first head this but another friend, years later, was unpleasantly propositioned by one of the people in question.

          • Colonel Mustard

            Something very nasty is going on now. An orchestrated left wing campaign to smear the Thatcher era by any means possible in order to indict the current Tories by association before the next election. An extension of McBride’s little smear scheme exploiting the current paedo hysteria with that odious fat slob Watson behind it no doubt.

            • Jambo25

              Thatcher’s PPS was a paedophile and she was warned. However, the really nasty stuff didn’t involve her and almost certainly started before she took over as Tory leader. The really bad stuff probably started during the Heath years.

              • Roger Hudson

                I think you will find that pederasty is the Tory preference, though the rot started in the sixties when ‘Woy’ became homoscretary.
                As for the Dickens dossier to Leonora, I await action.

                • Kennybhoy

                  As I said to Fergus above, this particular rot is as old as sin…

              • Kennybhoy

                Good for you Maister J…

              • Stephen Green

                Now that is a queer coincidence.

                • Jambo25

                  It is; isn’t it.

            • ButcombeMan

              No Colonel, it goes much later than the Thatcher era, They are “all in it together”.

              The Labour associated allegations are far worse.

            • Kennybhoy

              Get a fracking grip and stop trying to make party political points out of this!

              • Colonel Mustard

                I don’t think it is I who is making party political points but rather the Labour party as usual.

            • Stephen Green

              Spot on. The attacks on Brittan can’t just be a coincidence. The complaining lady should be helping Metroplod with their enquiries with a view to her being prosecuted for attempted blackmail along with her compesaytion lawyers for aiding and abetting that offence.

          • Fergus Pickering

            It can all be traced back to the sixties and unforeseen results of the contraceptive pill. Now therewas the pill a girl had no way of saying no.

            • Kennybhoy

              God knows I am no fan of “the permissive society” that the mass use of contraception allowed but I suspect that this sort of abomination has gone on throughout history Fergus…

              • Fergus Pickering

                I think so, Kennybhoy. I think so. I was giving a contributory cause. You might also consider the infantilising of sociey would naturally lead to more men wishing to have sexwith infants. And also the decline in a sense of sin. Men who wish to do these things now see no reason why they should not. God is dead and everything is permitted, don’t you know?

                • Jambo25

                  I think the political class were looking after their own long before Jenkins and the permissive society. Tom Driberg was a good example. A rampant cottager. He also propositioned a pal of mine (Though he’s not the Labour MP I touched on earlier) and was constantly having arrests and charges against him quashed by his political pals.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  He pursued the young Martin Amis round a table. However, Martin appears none the worse for it.

                • Jambo25

                  Didn’t know that but it doesn’t surprise me.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  It is in Amis’s excellent book about his father.

                • Jambo25

                  What’s a bit more worrying is the fact that Driberg was widely suspected of being a Warsaw Pact spy and his friends appear to have turned a blind eye to that as well.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Lots of them in the Labour Party. Jack Jones, Michael Foot (Tribune was funded with Russia money).

                • Jambo25

                  I really do doubt that Jones or Foot were involved in spying but John Stonehouse certainly appears to have been and there were various other weirdos in Wilson’s chamber of horrors who probably were as well. Joe kagan for example.

      • Dogzzz

        “Many of the reports were of the internet, tin-foil hat variety but there were enough more reputable reports and hints in the MSM”

        Well going by the comparitive records of the MSM vs the “tinfoil hat” brigade, I have to go with the tinfoil hat wearers for publishing more truths than the MSM. From Iraq’s WMD to “Catastrophic Anthropological Climate Change” to cover ups of high level predatory paedophiles even to the coverage of UKIP vs the other establishment parties… The alternative media has been right far more often than the corrupt mainstream media.

        For instance, ignoring the Lizard People rubbish, David Icke has been correct about so much more than the mainstream media. He has called it correct on Climate Change, on the “war on terror”, on international banking and the fractional reserve banking of fiat currencies, on Iraq’s WMD, On Syria, on Libya, on Egypt and so many other things. Especially on this paedophilia scandal.

        The same corporate establishment mainstream media which have been covering it all up for 50 years are still covering up the extent of this paedophile scandal. I wonder how long the dam will last?

        • Jambo25

          I think that on the paedophile/Smith/Elm guest house topic some of the ‘tin foil hat’ boys might have a point.

          • ButcombeMan

            Well they may and the really interesting feature to me, is that the “tin hat” boys were very right, about Saville.

            Now he is only one name but the reason Saville got away with it so long is surely because the MSM would not and could not, get stuck in.

            Rather like with “Captain Bob” in fact.

    • Chris Morriss

      Well… sending a report on child abuse to L*** B****** might seem a rather odd thing to do possibly?

      • ButcombeMan

        There is a putative press clipping on the net, showing an HMC&E seizure notice, in respect of goods at Dover in 1982, said (according to the text), to include a video tape marked “LB”.

        False or genuine? Has the person who put it up, been taken to task in Court? Not as far as I am aware.

        As the “Eye” would say, false or genuine, we “should be told”. Enough.

        Moore is a well informed, well connected man. The more I think about it, the more I believe his nonsense about Brand was put up to flush out exactly this sort of remark.

        I decided to help him out.

        • Kennybhoy

          I actually find Maister Moore’s aricles on this topic very creepy…

      • Andy

        He was the Home Secretary. But from the statement he made and the letter he sent to Dickens it would seem to me that the Home Secretary acted entirely properly. The file might have been nothing more than press cuttings and tittle tattle. The Police need to search their records.

        • Dogzzz

          Have you seen what was secretly smuggled out from the police investigation (cover up) of the Elm Lea Guest house?

          It is available online if you care to look for it. It is NOT tittle tattle. As the MP who handed the dossier to the Home Office stated at the time, the contents were explosive.

          And according to the documents as leaked online, a certain Leon Brittan appears in the list of attendees named who allegedly attended the sick parties which happened there, so it is easy to understand why he would “lose” those documents if the allegations made in them are true.

          • Andy

            I’m afraid much of it is tittle tattle. What the dossier contained no one seems to know – Dickens is long dead. If it or some of it was passed to Scotland Yard there would be a record of this. They should search their records and disclose. How can you say the Home Secretary ‘lost’ the dossier when in March the following year he wrote to Dickens about it and in that letter stated that it had (or parts of it) had been forwarded to the Police and the CPS ?? That is a silly thing to say. And given the fact that the Police were involved and the CPS it would have been very improper for the Home Secretary to have been involved any further. Or don’t you accept the idea of fair trails and all that ???

            Problem is on the internet people can and do make all sorts of libellous allegations. Take the case of the late Lord McAlpine, who had his good name and the twilight of his life sullied by scum such as Bercow. I took some f*ckwit to task on his blog over McAlpine. He was so thick he couldn’t even work out who was who in the McAlpine family, nor could he grasp the fact that Lord M had only ever visited Wrexham once. But because Scallywag had written a grossly libellous story about him – a magazine that had gone bankrupt long ago and whose editor was long dead – it had to be true. In reality it was complete bollocks.

            • ButcombeMan

              Andy

              Problem is, a lot of this supposed “tin hat” stuff, about a few politicians, of all parties, existed way before the Internet in anything like its current form.

              Some of us are old enough to remember.

              Moore knows this, must do

          • Roger Hudson

            Leave Leonora alone, you ‘phobe.

        • ButcombeMan

          There is a rumour kicking around the press that one of the main Sundays has decided to do something.

        • Jambo25

          Its still not the kind of thing that a civil service ministry loses. Its simply incredible.

          • Andy

            Well for a start we have no idea what the ‘dossier’ contained. It might have just been a bunch of newspaper cuttings. Dickens was a great one for publicity. So it isn’t ‘incredible’ at all. The relevant papers were passed to the Police according to a letter the Home Secretary wrote to Dickens and one assumes the rest of it was of no value so would be destroyed in the normal way – the State does not retain every single bit of paper and nor do you.

            • Jambo25

              Even if the Dickens file was pure crud it would not be ‘lost’ or destroyed. Files of that political sensitivity simply aren’t. The state may not retain every bit of paper but it would retain the Dickens file.

            • Jambo25

              We now appear to have 114 whole or partial files which went missing and Norman Tebbit saying that an establishment cover up was highly likely. Would you care to change your view? 114 files which relate to gross criminality amongst the political class simply don’t get routinely destroyed as part of civil service, routine house keeping.

              • Andy

                ‘114 files which relate to gross criminality amongst the political class simply don’t get routinely destroyed. . ‘
                There you go again.
                Have you seen any of these 114 files ?
                Can you tell us what the contents of the files were ?
                Can you give us the headings of the files ?
                Can you give us any information at all about these files ? No, exactly. And yet on the basis of your superior knowledge you have decided that these file ‘relate to gross criminality’ by all and sundry.

                And on the subject of the Dossier and Dickens if you look in Hansard you will find that Dickens did not raise the subject of the Dossier on the floor of the house even though he was very active in child matters. He died in 1995 more than 10 years after going to see the Home Secretary. One can only conclude that he was satisfied with the actions of the Home Office.

                • Jambo25

                  A ministry simply does not lose 114 files which may have connections to possible criminal activity. When you add on that Tebbit thinks there was a cover up going on as well then something very weird is going on. As Keith Vaz noted,”This is a loss of files on an industrial scale”.

                • Andy

                  I have searched through Hansard and I can find no record of Geoffrey Dickens ever raising the question of the dossier with the Home Secretary from 1980 until the end of 1994. Why not ? If it was so significant as you say – and you must have seen it and know its contents to make the assertions you have made – then why didn’t Dickens follow it up ? And the best way to do that was by a question on the floor of the house to the Home Secretary. That would suggest that Dickens was satisfied with the actions of the Home Office and that the dossier was not that significant.

                • Jambo25

                  I have not seen these files and neither have you. That’s not the point. The point is that 114 files which may (Note that) be related to criminal activity simply do not get ‘lost’ in the civil service. Incidentally, I know how Hansard works and I also know how PQs work as well.as I spent several years preparing answers to them for ministers. I haven’t worked in the civil service for a very long time so I ran this past a couple of pals of mine who happen to be serving and fairly senior civil servants. They also found the idea of ‘losing’114 files of this potential sensitivity simply incredible.

                • Andy

                  So with your superior knowledge and ‘preparing answers to them for ministers’ why is it that Dickens handed a dossier to the Home Secretary and then never raised the matter on the floor of the house ? His silence suggests to me that he was satisfied with the actions take. And remember he died in 1995. As to the missing files there is no evidence that they contained anything of any significance but there should be an explanation of what has become of them.
                  Geoffrey Dickens campaigned on child matters and wanted P.I.E. banned. That wasn’t the view of Harriet Harman, NCCL (now Liberty) and numerous others.

                • Jambo25

                  1) I have no idea what was in the Dickens’ dossier and neither do you. 2) The Dickens’ dossier is, however, only 1 of 114 files which have gone missing and that’s the point. 3) Civil service ministries do not ‘lose’ 114 sensitive files. Once again, that is simply incredible to anyone who has worked with sensitive files in a first line ministry. 4) I don’t care what Harman wants. I think the woman is a major political disaster and her and NCCL’s stance on PIE, as with much else, was brainless. Believe me, I’m no Labour partisan on this. From past stories I’ve heard from normally reliable sources, they have a number of questions to answer as well.
                  I do not believe that what should be under the closest scrutiny here is paedophilia but whether individuals or groups within the political and media classes plus the police and security services have deliberately gone out of their way to pervert the course of justice.

                • Andy

                  1. Agreed.
                  2. It appears that the Dickens Dossier was no such thing. And it also appears that Geoffrey Dickens was satisfied by the actions of the Home Office – he specifically thanked them in the House in 1987 !
                  3. You say the files are ‘sensitive’. How so ? The files might have been destroyed in the normal course of work – as a former Civil Servant you will remember the proceedure for opening files.
                  4. Agreed. However PIE is mixed up in all of this.

                • Jambo25

                  2) What happened to the other 113 files? How many of them were from Dickens? How many from other sources?
                  3) The files were ‘sensitive’ politically and senior civil servants are highly politically attuned animals. Even if these files were pure BS they would not have been got rid off. In fact the more BS they were the more likely it is that they would have been kept.

    • Conway

      I wouldn’t find it all astonishing if the file had been “destroyed”. Blair shredded his expenses for a start.

      • ButcombeMan

        Correction. His expenses were never found. Different thing.

        The reason I suspect it (the missing file) still exists somewhere is that such things are pure gold.

        • Roger Hudson

          Can’t find file?Lost? Try that excuse on the HMRC.

        • Kennybhoy

          Yup.

        • Jambo25

          Long ago and far away I worked as a civil servant for a while. Files of the importance of the one Dickens sent to Brittan simply do not get lost. Big civil service ministries, particularly at he level of a ministerial office or secretariat are paranoid about not losing files. We are now being led to believe that part of this file is still in existence; part destroyed and part lost. Anyone who believes that to be true has a head which zips up the back.

          • ButcombeMan

            Indeed. We agree. I also know precisely how “Private Offices” work, You are absolutely correct. Everything, in and out is scrupulously documented. Probably manually in 1982/3.

            If this file has gone missing it is because someone does not want it to be found or did not want it to be found.

            It is extremely unlikely to have been /accidentally/ destroyed, in whole or in part.

            The Ministers diary from 1982 will still be available. the list of people who were in and around that Office who might have seen or handled the file will still be available. Those who are alive should all be interviewed.

            My suspicion is that the core file will have been spirited to the Security Service. This sort of stuff being pure gold. Cameron should be asking them directly. There is no sign he has done that. He is remiss.

            The appointment of a “senior legal figure” to “review” also does not fill me with confidence. It needs proper investigation skills & capacity, coupled with an understanding of the machinery of government.

            The Plebgate enquiries, by the Cabinet Secretary, being a very good example of asking someone without the correct skills.

            • Jambo25

              It now appears that up to 114 full or partial files relating to child abuse went missing. I’ve not long watched Norman Tebbit saying that it looks like some large scale establishment cover up went on.
              I agree with you on the non utility of a senior legal figure reviewing this. That’s a ‘Coulsonesque’ stratagem to close real enquiry down. The problem is, which investigatory body would you get to do an investigation for you? It looks like the police, particularly the Met were part of the cover up and if Special Branch was involved and its certain they were then the security services will be as well. The harsh fact of the matter is that we appear to have police and security services which are out of control.

              • ButcombeMan

                Exactly.
                This will shake the foundations of the State (or is capable of).
                I would be prepared to do it if you carry my bag.
                I do not, by the way, think it was the Met. It was men (and it would be men) in grey suits.
                The Met would not be allowed to weed Government Files nor could they get access through “trusties”.

                • Jambo25

                  Probalby right. The Met appears to do the low level thuggery. It does kind of shine a light on why the political class appear to have let the police off with, what is in retrospect, major levels of corruption and incompetence over the years. Was it part of some deal that the cops wouldn’t investigate the political class’s little foibles too energetically if the political class didn’t push to hard on things like Hilsborough, failure to investigate ‘Asian’ grooming gangs, shooting the odd deaf Scotsman, large scale bribery by News International, failure to investigate News International etc etc (fill in the 30 or 40 cases you can think of.)

                • ButcombeMan

                  Most people think of structured grand conspiracies. It is not, I think, like that. Even with Blair over Iraq.

                  More likely, in government, that a “difficult” issue gets parked. Quietly buried, or played a certain way, with officials believing they are carrying out their masters wishes. maybe their master has muttered “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest” or similar.

                  The first Official passes it on to a second, with instructions to “have a look”. It never comes back. No one asks difficult questions. There is an intuitive understanding of what the Minister would prefer to happen.

                  The same process repeated time and time again with different Ministers and different Governments and parties. They are all doing it together.

                  When something really is, near bubbling out, the potential miscreant is spoken to in a “quiet word” and is removed to “spend more time with his family”, or some job well away from public gaze.

                  All involved, agree that is “for the best’. Even the opposition of the time, plays the game. there are unwritten rules.

                  Best for whom is never specified. Long term public interest never considered. Another government, another management regime will be along in a minute. Semi plausible deniability is built into the informality of it.

                  The world moves on.

                  Next week, next month, next year, another regime will pick up the pieces. Or not.

                • Jambo25

                  Entirely agree. The kind of deal I referred to is simply ‘understood’. The police had blind eyes to their little sins turned and in return they were at the disposal of their political masters to turn a blind eye of their own to the political class’s little sins and lean on those who threatened that class.

    • Fergus Pickering

      Are you suggesting Charles Moore is being paid to write this stuff by people in high office. I think you are talking bollocks. Moore is a bit of a snob but I do not believe he is for sale.

      • ButcombeMan

        Nope. I am not suggesting that at all. So retract the “bollocks’

        I am suggesting that like with “Captain Bob”, despite our so called free press, it is extraordinarily difficult to get anywhere near the truth in the MSM.

        What I am suggesting is that Moore has used an obvious ruse, quite deliberately, to get us talking. I have chosen to help him. you have chosen to close your eyes to the obvious, as they say in the Courts.. It is not either about entertainers who have been protected, Moore knows that, it is about politicians.

        He MUST, if he is worth his corn, be aware of the extensive rumours.

        Even now, I understand, at least one of the weekend papers, is considering with its lawyers, what it can actually print.

        And yes, some of the rumours come from what jambo calls the “tin hat” brigade.

        That brigade was though, VERY right, about Saville

        • Fergus Pickering

          So you ARE suggesting that he is in the pay of this mafia. I beg to differ.

          • ButcombeMan

            You are not free to say what I was suggesting, I KNOW what I was suggesting , I have made it clear what I am suggesting. You just fail, either deliberately or through stupidity, to “get it”.
            You are one of the worst types of troll. Your one line spoiler interventions of which you do so many, rarely contribute anything containing common sense, new insight, or even marginally useful contribution to a debate. You do not even have the parody of telemachus, or that persons humour. There are no redeeming features about much of what you put on here.

            • Fergus Pickering

              You call this a debate? You talk nonsense at great length and thn call it a contribution to debate?

              • ButcombeMan

                Fergus
                Dear boy. I do not want to be too unkind to you.
                I think if you look at today’s papers you will see that they are very much following my take on this not yours.
                Moore wrote his kite flying piece and of all people on here, I spotted what the real issue is. Jambo agreed. We were plainly correct.
                Sometimes in life, people like you, have to accept that you are not as smart as you think you are. So sit up, straight back and pay attention.
                This is going to run and run.
                I will, from time to time, explain the issues and what is going on, for people like you.

      • Jambo25

        No but he is possibly being fed stuff by trusted ‘sources’ who have their own agenda.

    • Kennybhoy

      “Charles Moore is I believe, indulging in distraction, throwing us chaff. I do not like Brand but it is not right to brand (sorry) him in this way.

      Why, is Moore throwing us “chaff”?

      I am deeply suspicious.”

      Agreed. And it isnt the first time.

      http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/in-life-jimmy-savile-was-excused-everything-in-death-he-is-indiscriminately-condemned/

      • edithgrove

        Yes, CM has form. It is odd, as others have said, that he fingers a comedian but ignores his own cronies, most of whom would have been regulars at the Spectator’s Summer Party, by the looks of it.

  • Liz

    The p*rn industry needs to be investigated, much of it is blatant sexual abuse of financially, mentally or emotionally vulnerable young people and where lines of consent are often blurred (not that consent ought to be the measure of acceptability when it comes to exploiting or abusing other people or employees).

    • Kennybhoy

      I was actually going to vote this up until I read that last parenthesized section…

      • Liz

        Where do you stand on the minimum wage?

  • Liz

    The fashion industry is the next place to look.

  • Rhoda Klapp8

    I’m glad somebody has pointed this out. Not in the context of the BBC alone, but in all of our society. These things are going on now. People know, complaints are ignored, concerns are swept under the carpet, whistleblowers sidelined and coverups abound. They ALWAYS cover it up, no organisation can come clean when it has the ability to rationalise its way to doing ‘what’s best for everyone’ if it means keeping the organisation out of trouble. It did not stop happening in the 70s. It goes on today. Look at the LibDems, accusations of abuse drag on, everybody ‘knows’ there’s something there, it is whitewashed away. No doubt they are not the only ones. And yes, I’d look at the BBC, the bigger the bureaucracy the more likely the coverup.

    • Gary Wintle

      But the BBC did not give Savile access to Broadmoor, Ken Clarke and Edwina Currie did.

  • Marmalade Sandwich

    Endlessly unhappy with the BBC. There is a simple solution. Stop paying your licence fee. Remove the unsightly TV aerial from your house, and sell the TV on ebay. This will free up plenty of free time and when you hear a turgid debate on Today on R4 you can relax as at least you not longer fund this institution. Then just tune in to decent drama online, of which very little is made by the BBC.

    • dado_trunking

      You cannot afford a state broadcaster.
      Are you broke or something?

      • MrsDBliss

        He hasn’t said that has he.

        • dado_trunking

          And he wouldn’t, would he?
          But there is help – free and impartial debt advice.
          How many licence fee payers do you think are affected by this?

          a- none
          b- ten
          c- a thousand
          d- a million?

          By hunch is d.

          • Barakzai

            I’ve only heard Daleks speak, but if they do write then it must surely come across like this . . .

            • dado_trunking

              That’s my culture, lad – it’s in my jeans.

              • Colonel Mustard

                In your script from EU Central more like.

                • dado_trunking

                  erhm … my hunch is that one million punters have difficulties paying their TV licence in Britain and I am darn sure I am not far out, and you accuse me of what?
                  What has not being able to afford to pay your TV licence got to do with the E faqing U?

                • Colonel Mustard

                  You tell me. You are the dork who put them together in the same sentence.

                • dado_trunking

                  No loon, you tell me why I put it in one sentence.

                  A million odd punters cannot afford to pay for their TV licence. They probably aren’t paying for their licence as we speak. That’s the real story here, disguised every time.
                  You don’t care. Who gives a fork that you don’t.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Listen EU-boy, I’m not here to answer your questions. Your Fourth Reich isn’t here yet.

                • dado_trunking

                  Listen duffus, ‘my’ reich is already here, remember.
                  Now pay your taxes so I get my landlord benefits on time.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Oh, I pay my taxes EU-boy but I object that part of them is used to pay dorks like you to troll propaganda for the EU whilst pretending to be such a funny, clever fellow.

                • dado_trunking

                  Boy oh boy, you are asking for repeat colonic irrigations today, arentcha?
                  What went wrong – no one gives a crap about your centralist Londonistan tennis-style ping pong. Real Englishmen are only interested in life in the periphery which today culminated in a great Tour de Yorkshire.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  “We” gather that, do we? Weird.

                  I’ve been to Leeds.

                  And you are still a dork.

                • dado_trunking

                  Matey, my lines have always been crystal clear. There is no ambiguity.

                  1- your Magna Carta elite days are coming to an end. The people demand it. We want democracy.
                  2- our Head of State as head of a state religion will drop out eventually, which means that the status of your church, the Church of England, would have lost all its legitimacy and foundation
                  3- our green and pleasant land will only remain so if you embarked on and supported the European way of cleaner air, cleaner energy, better planning laws and laws of the land.
                  4- our state which has always been a controlling state with highest CCTV cover on the planet, a rioting underclass, a complicit police, an expenses-fiddling and donation-dependent representation, not just in Westminster but also locally, will be seen to fix itself or be fixed.

                  Scotland and its people are aware of all of the above – that is why I would urge them to think twice before passing judgement in a referendum that could end all of what I listed in one clean sweep.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Stop talking about “our” when you are just a weird EU troll and don’t dare, ever, suggest that the “European way of laws of the land” is wanted or needed here.

                  You don’t represent the people, let alone democracy. You are just a propaganda peddling EU troll trying to undermine birthright notions of the sovereignty of this nation and the predominance of its Common Law with your Eurosocialist green mischief making. Whoever runs you would be better getting some proper native English speakers because your attempt to pose as one of us is an epic fail.

                  It is exactly the same Eurosocialist green garbage posted by your cell mates Doolally Che and Barking Mad.

                • dado_trunking

                  Colonel – you called me a Labour stooge once, remember?
                  Now I am a EU funded troll. What next?

                  I outlined in great detail my position, I outlined my support FOR a British state broadcaster many times. I outlined my support for clarity of thought and argument.
                  You do not want to engage. You have nothing to say to either 1, 2, 3, 4 nor my conclusion which pivots around Scotland, not the EU. You offer nothing in return. Now is the time to offer something in return or begone. Up your pathetic game.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  You and clarity! Now that is hilarious.

                • dado_trunking

                  It is quite obvious when I invert it.
                  Only you, the Inverted Chuzzlewitz that you are, don’t get it.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  No lad we are just sick of your sock puppet army pretending to be British. It’s the gibberish which gives it away lad.

                • dado_trunking

                  If you say so Chuzzlewitz – if I am not then neither are you.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Labour stooge, EU funded troll. Two cheeks on the same ugly backside. Who cares. The most important thing is the absolute bogusness of your presence and propositions here.

                  And the “Nicolas” (sic) crack (and thinking it conveys some sort of devastating advantage to your tedious bilge) is the give away that you and the other creeps are in cahoots doing what you do here.

                  You must be really dense if you think your collective house style is not bleedin’ obvious.

                • dado_trunking

                  Dado_trunking is in da house and Nicolas is checkmate, again. Bleedin’ obvious if you ask me.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  You can have the last word…

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  Don’t forget the Goat and You kid Colonel. They spout plenty of socialist nutter gibberish as well.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  I reckon a careful analysis of the threads would reveal the shift system they use to monitor the site but time will probably tell anyway. I understand that a high profile…

                  Oops! Musn’t give too much away!

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  Is that the view of all your EU sponsored socialist nutter sock puppets laddie? Not that any of us can tell what that view is; it being dressed up n self-aggrandising socialist nutter gibberish.

                • dado_trunking

                  It must be if you say so.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  You’ve been rumbled lad. You and your EU sock puppet army.

                • dado_trunking

                  If you say so, Schusselwitz.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  Have you consulted Dalai, you kid etc or were you barking at the Goat? Its difficult to keep up with all your sock puppets laddie.

                • Huw Wilson

                  My lines (like yours) are crystal clear – there is no ambiguity. If you do not like this country which you evidently don’t.. nor as highlighted above you don’t like the way things are done here – please feel free to leave. What are you doing in a country you hate?

                • dado_trunking

                  I change what I see fit whenever I see fit.
                  Live with it.

                • Kitty MLB

                  Dearest Colonel, What on earth is a dork?
                  The word sounds quite unusual, almost alien.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Dearest Kitty, I have no wish to speculate on the etymology in mixed company but it is a term for a “silly person” originating from the USA in the 1960s (I believe). It would be difficult to describe the attributes of a “dork” were it not for dado_trunking’s fine collection of exemplifiers to be perused with much amusement here.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  Your sponsors lad. Only the EU would be daft enough to pay a gibberish spouting nutter and his sock puppets to clog up this site.

                • dado_trunking

                  Hilarious!

      • Fergus Pickering

        Oh we can afford a state broadcaster. Just not this state broadcaster.

    • Smithersjones2013

      You could at least know what you need the licence for:

      You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV
      as it’s being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a
      computer, laptop, mobile phone
      or DVD/video recorder.

      I do hope you are legal? Auntie BNeeb is an unforgiving b*tch!

      • Chris Morriss

        The key words here are “as it’s being broadcast”.

        • Roger Hudson

          Who allows the timing of when broadcasters show ‘live’ TV to dictate when they watch something? not me.

    • Fuck you

      I’m not a Brit, but you Brits sure are pathetic with the way you use your socialist BBC coercion as a cudgel. Do you actually think you have the moral high ground telling a person to ‘remove their TV aerial’? You’re fucking kidding me right? You’re basically nothing but a thug that would in extremis, put someone in prison for steadfastly refusing to pay the licence fee, if they let it go that far. What you’re saying is, ‘unhappy with the BBC? you have no right to electronic media in this civilization then, take your TV aerial down, submit your house to raids and inspections by state goons checking to see if you have a TV, or fuck off’.

      You’re a thug.

      • Tim Reed

        The commenter was simply stating what is required to stop being pestered by the TV licence goons. It’s the laws relating to the BBC and the enforcement of its licence that are thuggish, not this person’s suggestion.

        Calm down.

        • Marmalade Sandwich

          Output on the BBC is pitiful. So if you don’t mind watching via a computer or tablet, then save £145.50 pa and get most of your essential viewing elsewhere and stop funding the warped leftie view of the world very few actually hold. TV drama is so much better on Netflix, and so little of it was produced by the £3.6 billion funding the BBC receives each year. When a large enough threshold stop funding the BBC, the BBC will have to shrink back to size and comfortably fit into the headspace of Fuck you above. And if you’re not going to watch live TV at home then you may as well take down your unsightly aerial.

      • Cyril Sneer

        Nice name, does it have any particular meaning?

  • artemis in france

    Courageous stuff, Mr. Moore, and I imagine your comments strike a chord with those of us who were teenagers when Harris and Savile were indulging their weird and deeply unpleasant desires to the détriment of their young and, I would imagine, mostly innocent victims. Of course you are right and there must be similar nasty behaviour among the younger “celebrities” today, and you are right again about the appalling standard set by the BBC when it allowed Ross and Brand to continue earning large sums after their creepy attack on Sachs.

    • Kitty MLB

      Well generally those days were far more “innocent” and
      before the advent of the pc brigade and all the likes of
      the vile Saville needed was for his employers to inadvertently or otherwise to turn a blind eye and trusting
      starstruck youngster. And adults blinded by his fame
      or fearing it.And the same goes for creepy Harris.

      • Gary Wintle

        “inadvertently”, “trusting”…or, more likely, Savile was protected by his friends in high places, friends such as Ken Clarke, who, bizarrely, allowed Savile, a Radio DJ, unprecedented access and power in Broadmoor, for no logical reason.

        • Kennybhoy

          Actually the alternatives laid out by Kitty and youself are not mutually exclusive…

        • Stephen Green

          Perhaps he thought that he should have been classified as an inmate.

      • Lizzie Cornish

        Rolf Harris was never creepy, imo. Please, do NOT believe what you are reading in the press about him, nor even what was said at his travesty of a trial. You will learn far more here..and you will be horrified, possibly, at what Rolf has been put through…https://www.facebook.com/pages/Support-Rolf-Harris/1503049216593977?fref=ts

    • Wessex Man

      What really annoyed me was that they were being paid so much and there wasn’t a tad of talent between them.

      • Andy

        If they work for the BBC it should be a matter of public record what they earn.

        • Paul Blackstock

          This everytime, they are a public funded company and as such should be answerable to the public

          • Gary Wintle

            As should the railways.

        • http://t.co/rXjomKpfUv JP Janson De Couet

          I wish I know how much the people who wrote this crap were paid compared to the BBC

          • red2black

            Lest we forget, Rolf Harris also appeared on the commercial (laughingly called ‘independent’) television channels.

      • steve

        yes, the really annoying thing about two paedophiles who did awful things and ruined people’s lives is that they weren’t very good at their jobs.

        • Fergus Pickering

          What on earth do you mean. Rolf Harris was spectacularly good at his job.

        • Kennybhoy

          He was obviously referring to Brand and Harty you fracking eedjit!

          • JCQC

            You’re saying Brand and Ross are paedophiles? Read the posting again before you decide who’s the idiot.

          • Dickie

            Its You Feckin’ Half Eedjit actually.

      • Kitty MLB

        Well they certainly hid behind their TV mask and were
        popular because of being famous and always on TV
        etc regardless of being talentless.I understand
        Saville and Harris visited hospitals together..
        almost like a sick secret society.

        • Jackthesmilingblack

          Savile. Come on Kitty, Chop, chop.

          • Kitty MLB

            Oh yes.

          • George Smiley

            Autism strikes again, eh?!

        • Lizzie Cornish

          NO! Savile was asked to Broadmoor BY Broadmoor itself, who wanted to change the culture, giving a softer appearance to the public. They chose Savile because of his fame and in the hope he’d bring in other celebrities. He ALSO brought in Acker Bilk, Frank Bruno AND…Pan’s People! So, are you now saying that they TOO are paedophiles?????? Rolf did ONE Summer Fete. He, as I’m sure happened with all other celebrities too, was given a short GUIDED tour of Broadmoor and at ALL times he was accompanied by Staff….Broadmoor issued a statement saying exactly this and also stating that NOTHING untoward happened whatsoever whilst Rolf was there….For keriste’s sake, RESEARCH!! You will find out FAR more on here, please look at some of the photos too for more info. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Support-Rolf-Harris/1503049216593977?fref=ts

          • Dickie

            Here! Here!

    • Gary Wintle

      There’s actually less bad behaviour from today’s stars because there is no longer the old boy’s club culture which fostered such behaviour.

      Nice how Charles airbrushes Edwina Currie and Ken Clarke, the latter has kept a very low profile since Savile exploded.

      • Fergus Pickering

        Bollocks! There are ‘stars’ bedding boys and girls of twelve even as we speak.

        • Kennybhoy

          If you have evidence for this then it is your duty to contact the police Fergus.

        • Kennybhoy

          PS You appear to have up voted yersel in error Fergus… :-)

          • Fergus Pickering

            Have I? Why not? I must do it again.

        • Benny Reid

          Witch hunt much? Get a grip!

      • Baron

        You’ve got it, Gary, punishing the old celebs makes little difference, what would make bigger difference is if we went after those who protected them instead of looking after the vulnerable. This, of course, we won’t do, the protectors, many still alive, are either powerful or with powerful friends. That’s equality of the progressives for you.

        • Kennybhoy

          Maistly agree Baron but this particular sin knows no political boundaries…

          • red2black

            There aren’t many that do.

    • Stephen Green

      You mean that the beeb should have standards?
      That’s a novel idea but I suppose it could catch on but don’t hold your breath.

    • Lizzie Cornish

      Would you STOP linking Rolf to Savile please. Stop being stupid and RESEARCH!! You will find out much that you NOT aware of in here…https://www.facebook.com/pages/Support-Rolf-Harris/1503049216593977?fref=ts

  • telemachus

    Be careful Charles
    *
    The actual crime of Russell Brand is being uncouth and unfunny

    • monty61

      Not to mention thick.

      • HookesLaw

        Although not as thick as the people who think he is funny.

        • Kitty MLB

          Women find amusing and clever men attractive
          but that vainglorious fool has not been blessed
          with wit or wisdom and even the common sense
          to realise that fact. Oh and his hair is far too long, going for the Heathcliff look obviously,
          and yet some women will chase the likes of him
          because of fame.

          • HookesLaw

            ‘Women find amusing and clever men attractive’ …. “sigh!”

          • Timhole

            His hair has nothing to do with it.

            • Chris Morriss

              It can’t be his voice, which sounds as if he’s breathing Helium all the time.

        • Andy

          You mean people think he is funny ???? Never.

      • Hexhamgeezer

        ……..and he thinks he’s a proper geezer – supporting the Hammers.

    • Lagos1

      Still, I would rather put up with general uncouthness and lack of funniness on the TV than have what happened to the Sachs’ happen to my family. Even if it wasn’t formally criminal.

      • telemachus

        He is also rich
        And probably has a hotline to Carter Ruck

      • Damaris Tighe

        that was crass, childish, unfunny & unforgivable.

    • Kingstonian

      First (and probably the last) time I will ever give telemachus an up-tick, but for once he’s right on the money!

      • Roger Hudson

        Quite, the libel laws shield rich people from scrutiny.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here