Well I don't profess to be an expert on the law in the regard but according to the prosecuting QC it is actually a criminal offence to even knowingly search for such material, even if the actual material viewed turns out not to be images of children.

Just as the defence were entitled to bring up Harris' charity work and other things as evidence of good character, the prosecution are entitled to put forward evidence of bad character in the mitigation hearing so of course they were going to bring it up.

What search terms did he use ?
Or did they not disclose those and thus miss an easy conviction on searching for child porn ?


I also note that Vanessa Feltz is now declaring that he slipped his hand into her knickers live on Channel 4's Big Breakfast Show but despite the fact that it was in a room packed with production crew and Harris' wife not to mention how many millions watching on TV, she didn't think that she should mention it at the time - she does say that she told police after he'd been arrested but they said they didn't have time to include it in the case - that was a year before it went to court - live on TV, recorded in archives, open and shut case of indecent assault and they didn't have 12 months to work on it.

It gets more and more incredible the more you learn.

What I have found quite peverse post-sentencing is the fact that it only requires one person, with absolutely no connection to those being tried or their victims, to complain that a sentence was too lenient. There will always be some bugger who thinks any sentence too lenient and if they complain, the review process is automatically triggered. IMO, any complaint on lenient sentencing should come from a victim, or if the victim is deceased, then a close family member and not just some random nut-job

Sorry but slipping his hand into her drawers would surely trigger a plea of "not of sound mind"

I agree. With the outrage stoacked up by the press such as the false impression that he had pronographic images of kids on his computer it's hardly surprising if the general public can raise an objection someone will but what is worse is the Attorney General is going to have to have a very thick skin not to feel backed into a corner and raise the tariff sue to all this publicity. This idea of doing this also politicizes the sentencing of criminals as the Attorney General is a political appointment himself and he is a non cabinet minister of the government.

His job is to represent the Government on legal matters and offer it legal advice and what having him review sentences does is put him [iabove[/i the courts when in fact as basically the Governments solicitor he should be [isubservient[/i to the courts. If the political climate dictates increasing sentences on celebrities convicted of such offenses is popular how can a government minister as opposed to a judge be objective?

Is Bill Wyman going to jail, or is he too big?

Do people want Bill Wyman to go to jail?

Is the level of evidence at the trials of Harris and Clifford going to be enough for all the allegations against politicians, or will politicians demand some proof to convict one of theirs?

What has bill Wyman got to do with the Rolf Harris case? honestly, reading your posts on this subject you seem a tad delusional.

I'll ask you one question, do you think Rolf Harris sexually abused the people in question?

Bill Wyman was publicly dating a 13 year old girl when he was around 50 years old (a guess, I don't know the ages). It was acknowledged in the press that he first had sex with her when she was 14. He actually married her when she was 18.

But that doesn't stop the fact that having sex with a 14 year old girl was illegal, is illegal and is significantly a more serious offence than what Harris is convicted of.

So I'll ask again, should the state be pursuing Wyman for that offence and do you want them to?



I think he probably did grope a lot of women. He probably wasn't overly fussed about the age of consent, so I think he probably groped girls too.

The women making allegations, I'm not sure. The prospect of easy money in compensation is too big a factor to ignore. The fact that an arm around the hip or waist can easily be changed to a hand on the buttocks or breast when it never actually happens means the charge is impossible to defend.

I do not believe that groping of over 16s has ever been counted as a form of genuine sexual abuse at any time apart from now. I don't believe that any of the thousands of waitresses or air hostesses who have been groped have felt that they were victims of sexual abuse. I think they were just extremely pi55ed that such an utter **** felt they could touch them. Or if they liked the guy they went home with him and screwed him.

I think it is ridiculous that groping is beyond the statute of limitations.

Reading the statements of the women making allegations against Harris I don't believe any of them felt anything like the impact they are now claiming. I don't believe that the innocence existed that they claim they had.

You seem to have a strange concept of what constitutes sexual abuse then. You also seem to have very little respect for women and their expectation to be able to go through life without the unwanted physical attentions of anyone who may believe that it's OK to "cop a feel".

On another note, what about the disappearance of the Dickens dossier? The details were said to be explosive and would blow the lid off the lives of powerful and famous child abusers. There must have been a few handshakes with fat brown envelopes to ensure the disappearance of those.

Can anyone in power and fame be trusted again?

Cambridge girl, the 16 year old waitress who was so traumatised that she thought she was 13. If that crime was witnessed by others, friends and independent people, then Harris would have been arrested if they'd reported it. In this case there was no other witness. So the cops would have just told her that it was her word against his and almost certain to go nowhere. If she insisted on making a report they'd follow it up, but it would be a waste of police time and everyone knows it.

But because she's waited 40 years before reporting it he's now sent to jail over it and she's going to be raking in tens of thousands in compensation for it? It's nonsense, on Nonce Sense, as Phil Collins would say.

Groping is clearly sexual abuse, but it's not the sexual abuse that the NSPCC is built on. It is not something that deserves to be alongside murder and rape as crimes that will be pursued for a lifetime.

David Mellor was asked during a report over the weekend on TV about it and says he has seen the evidence. Rather than having explosive details he said it was exceptionally weak in terms of evidence.

But if we're going by the standards of Harris's trial, having exceptionally weak evidence won't matter. If someone claims to be a victim they'll be accepted as a victim and conviction rates are going to soar.

I've seen a list of supposed visitors to the Barnes guest house where all the famous people supposedly performed child abuse. If they are going to pursue them like they've pursued Harris then dozens of lives are going to be ruined.

Anyone who trusts people in power and famous people need to read some ****ing books and open their eyes while they go about their daily business.

As I said, you have a strange concept of what sexual abuse is and why people but especially females, should be able to go about their daily lives without concerning themselves that they may be subjected to unwanted and unwarranted touching.

A few weeks ago I was in a trans club and followed a very dear friend of mine across the upstairs bar area. A middle-aged guy walking towards us made a grab for her groin area, she managed a side-step that would be the envy of most half-backs and avoided him. As he passed me I grabbed him by the shoulder and asked what the fook he thought he was doing. Before he could answer, I asked if he would ever consider doing the same to a genetic girl in the street or a bar or club. He blushed, mumbled an half-assed apology and looked sheepish. I told him that if she'd been in the downstairs dark room or any "play" area, she might be seen as "fair game" but she was walking through a social area and as such, he should be expected to keep his hands to himself unless invited to do otherwise.

Do I think that she should have been subjected to that? Absolutely not. If I was with her I would have probably reacted in a similar manner to you. In fact if she was a close friend the guy would have probably been on the floor and I'd I've suffered a broken hand.

However, you are illustrating my point. He subjected her to an attempted groping. Your reaction to that was not to arrest him and call the police, your reaction to that was to basically threaten him a little and leave it at that.

Your assessment of an attempt at a form of sexual abuse was to issue a mild threat and a warning. If you believe that this is such a serious crime then the police should have been called. You know what would have happened. If he had a clean record and your friend wished to make a formal complaint he'd have probably received a caution. If he had previous for this then he'd have been charged. You and your friend chose to leave it because it wasn't worth all that hassle.

If you truly believe this is a serious form of sexual abuse then you should be talking with your friend and getting her to report this to the police. I don't think you do. I think the incident is just a sour memory and something you've both moved on from.

Bill Wyman's case is an odd one. He married Mandy Smith and his son married Mandy Smith's mother. How do you work that one out at the Christmas lunch table? Who gets to carve the turkey?

If you want another conundrum how about Jimmy Page having his roadie kidnap a 14 year old model from a club so he could lock her in a room and do whatever Jimmy Page used to do. He kept the girl for 18 months - mostly under guard or locked up. Allegedly she is okay with it all.