Rolf Harris: accused, but not charged.

21 April 2013

I always thought there was something a little bit sinister about that Jake The Peg character. With what he refers to as his ‘extra leg’, m’lud. And then, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I would draw your attention to the follow up hit which was entitled, signally, ‘Two Little Boys’…………

So, now it’s Rolf Harris – and Channel Five has been forced to pull its scheduled transmission of ‘Olive The Ostrich’, in case Rolf’s alleged guilt somehow seeps out of the television screen and into the innocent and vulnerable ears of toddlers. But guilt of what? As with almost all of the rest of the celebrities arrested with great fanfare by the old bill – dawn swoops, computers carried away in plastic bags etc – Harris has not actually been charged with anything at all. Interviewed twice, no charges. Left swinging in the breeze these last five months since the Operation Yewtree police first did their dawn swooping thing, his career and reputation smashed. In fact, since Operation Yewtree began in October last year, just one person has actually been charged. Lots of well-loved pensioners arrested and their lives shattered, but just one charge – at a cost to us all of more than two million quid. Wouldn’t Operation Over-Compensation not be a better name for it?

Give the perfect gift this Christmas. Buy a subscription for a friend for just £75 and you’ll receive a free gift too. Buy now.

Show comments
  • GregGrimer

    I met Rolf Harris in 1979 at the age of 11. I had just started secondary school and joined something called the British Airways young fliers club. They had an event for school children in central London Hotel, Rolf Harris attended and drew each child, from what must have been 100-150 children there on the day, a cartoon in black and red ink and signed it. He had 3 different cartoons a kangaroo, a pilot and a footballer. When my came turn I asked for a “Dustman”, no idea why, I just wanted something unique I guess. He laughed drew it freehand while I stood next to him and then drew a little dedication and signed it, all in about 50 seconds, shook my hand and wished me well. Very pleasant jovial, jokey middle aged bloke who knew how to entertain children. Not a hint of being a perv.

    Proves nothing either way and not claiming it does, Just my recollection of the fella.

    • Moor Larkin

      If there were more real-life people willing to put their head above the parapet, maybe the internet would be less full of crazy people.

  • Moor Larkin

    I’m surprised nobody has made more of the fact that ACPO were involved in the making of the original Savile documentary. Given their intimacy with the journalism, as exemplified by the original Exposure programme, and it’s frankly laughable sequel, it’s only to be expected that the ongoing legal operation surrounding the brouhaha carries many of the same attributes as the journalism.

    Peter Watt (NSPCC)
    “I first became involved in Operation Yewtree when ACPO and ITV contacted the NSPCC in October last year. This was in advance of the airing of the documentary “Exposure – The Other Side of Jimmy Savile”.

    Given that the NSPCC were brought in prior to the broadcast ever being made, it is plain that Savile had already been judged “guilty” and the collective media were leaving no stone unturned to convince everyone of the fact. Rolf Harris is like a litmus test of how effectively they have all brainwashed the nation.

  • Andy M

    The British police would rather follow a pointless witch-hunt of people who *allegedly* did something decades ago, yet no conclusive evidence supporting the claim, than actually properly police crimes that are happening today. Very real crimes of young Muslim girls being forced into arranged marriages, etc. That is a real problem in our current society that needs dealing with. Instead of arresting, and then not charging, a bunch of pensioners who won’t be around for much longer, they should be focusing on today.

    • James Strong

      And lets not forget the gangs of ‘Asian’ men, or even just ‘men’ ,( as referred to by PC wimps who don’t want to offend ‘communities’ ) who have done so much grooming of under-age girls.

      • Neil Saunders

        No, let’s forget them, like we’re supposed to.

  • Hexhamgeezer

    If only he had qualified as a nurse he woulda been in the clear – no scapegoating see?

    • Graham

      If he qualified as a nurse and then worked at ATOS, he would still be under scrutiny 😛

  • David Ossitt

    Rod, sad to say but there are some really nasty mean spirited people posting here.

  • Shadow Pete™

    Well said Mr Little. There is an offence of Wasting Police Time, the penalty for which is imprisonment for up to six months or a fine. Operation Yewtree, which began as a pointless and indeed witless investigation of a dead man, seems to be a classic waste of said hugely expensive time, and I look forward to charges being laid.

    • mrsjosephinehydehartley

      Yes even one of the older government docs ( something about public service transformation ) starts off with “1.1 Citizens’ time is not free, yet often the way public services are delivered assumes it …”

      But what about that other chap in Guantanomo bay – Shaker is it? He’s actually been cleared years ago and still he’s stuck over there.

      These people are still ordinary members of the public.

    • Maisey Mouse

      Re: “Operation Yewtree, which began as a pointless and indeed witless investigation of a dead man, seems to be a classic waste of said hugely expensive time, and I look forward to charges being laid”

      Me too.

      Jimmy Savile has been set up, that is not acceptable.

      • Maisey mouse


        Re: “investigation”

        There hasn’t actually been an “investigation” into the Jimmy Savile accusations, all the police have done is collected allegations that have been trawled for by the media.

  • Baron

    The police, the BBC, few others still alive who knew, did nothing to stop the great peado must now do everything to dilute his sickening crime and their guilt. The more and the more well known men (for it is just men) the police question the better for all involved even if no charges follow. When Yewtree’s over it will feel Sir Jimmy was just one of many, only marginally worse. Shame on them.

  • The_greyhound

    “Wouldn’t Operation Over-Compensation not be a better name for it?”

    There’s no doubt that the quest for compensation has a great deal to do with the whole charade. There would be no point in accusing the impecunious or un-televised of wandering hands now, would there?

  • terence patrick hewett

    I voted Tory to fix a corrupt judiciary, a corrupt police force and to put the quango to the sword: they have done none of these things, which is why I now vote UKIP.

    • DougS

      That’s you and a shed load of others terence.

      I think that the three amigos (LibLabCon) could be in for a bit of a shock at forthcoming local elections – and a couple more at the EU and general elections!

    • Neil Saunders

      You might as well have voted Tory to cure cancer, promote human brotherhood and institute an earthly paradise.

    • Christopher-Mark Gibbins

      I’d go and get some professional help if I were you ….. Terence.

  • telemachus

    I am delighted you have had the courage to highlight this

  • Liz

    “So, now it’s Rolf Harris”

    It’s been Rolf Harris for months. He’s been under investigation by the police for some time and has now been arrested. His name was published by Guido Falwes while you were blogging that the suspect hadn’t been named.

    • Eddie

      Which does not mean he is guilty of anything, silly – though being a feminutsy, you think any man accused of anything must be guilty. Ask your sisters to buy you a smock and a pitchfork for Winterval, why doncha?

      • Liz

        Irrelevant. I am talking about misleading readers about the identity of the accused, not about guilt.

        • Eddie

          Yes, you are.
          If those accused of such things had the anonymity they deserved, then hissing spitting mob of manhating feminutsies would have to get another hobby, instead of hounding innocent old men. Maybe kicking mongols? poking wheelchair users? Leading blind men on tours of brothels (maybe in Billingsgate?)

          • Turnip R Greasemonkey

            You are a hateful, racist, sexist prig.

          • Turnip R Greasemonkey

            Not so innocent now you paedophile apologist, eh?

        • Oscar Jones

          what accused ?. a man has been questioned, not yet accused.

      • Oscar Jones

        if Guido Falwes named him you could almost be sure he is innocent. We all knew his name but most of us are not gauche, desperate attention seekers like Staines.

    • rodliddle

      I was blogging that he hadn’t been named because he hadn’t been named, dimwit.

      • Eddie

        Rod, watch a 2012 Danish movie called ‘The Hunt’. Brilliant film.
        It’s the best film I have ever seen about an innocent man falsely accused
        (and way better than the silly UK TV dramas which shoehorn monstrous male peedyfiles and kiddiefiddling polts into almost every single drama these days to engender sympathy and empathy with an ‘abused’ character).

    • Liz

      I can’t post a response to this because my comments to Rod Liddle are being pre-moderated. So there we are.

      • Eddie

        Oh Boo hoo – more pity party victimhood politics from the manhating femibot.
        Perhaps you should go back to screeching on some other blog instead of stalking innocent men here. Try Or manhating monthly mob news? Or Dworkin’s talkin?

      • salieri

        And that is a source of sorrow that we shall just have to endure with such fortitude as we can muster.

        But did you not mean to say your comments are being moderated? Not pre-moderated, of course, since the one doing the pre-moderation, before posting, could only be you. Come to think of it, maybe you could actually attempt some pre-moderation, so that your valuable insights could then be appreciated more often than they are.

      • rodliddle

        You just did.

        • rodliddle

          And it wasn’t misleading, you silly woman. There were legal reasons why he couldn’t be named.

  • Austin Barry

    I’ll be interested to see when, if ever, the police move to arrest any of the current and former politicians, some previous Cabinet members, named, with apparent evidential justification, as paedophiles on the net.

    Never, is my guess.

    • Eddie

      Yes – and it seems the police have given up trying to arrest real criminals at all. London, for example, is a muggers paradise and if you get robbed or burgled, there is so little chance of the rozzers catching any suspects that they don’t even bother to visit you (though you can get a crime number for the insurance on the phone).
      Compare with what happens when someone writers noggy-naggy-noo and naughty words on Twitter, or dares criticise a Muslim, or uses the word pike-hee. Five squad cars and 3 battalians of riot rozzers roll out of vans ready to arrest the dreadful criminal who has said naughty words and had naughty non-pc thoughts on a computer.
      Easy meat for the rozzers to meet their arrest targets, of course.
      Mad world though. I think the police have lost it big time.

    • Oscar Jones

      what ” apparent evidential justification” is that apart from numerous blogs citing each other as ‘evidence’ in a round robin exercise ?

  • Eddie

    Totally agree. If a man has abused children in the past, fine – but from what I hear a lot of these older celebrities are just being arrested for coming on to young adults (not illegal then or now).
    Utter hysterical waste of public money (which is essentially a feminist hate campaign against the male race); utterly unfair to men who are not assumed to be guilty just because they have been accused by some compo-sniffing scrounger. All male teachers know this could be them – no wonder the the education system has become a man-free zone in many places. Why should any man put up with such constant suspicion?
    All those who think this fair and/or achieve anything are deluded – this is doing nothing to protect children, and is just making society more hysterical and obsessed with child abuse as some bogie man behind a lamp post – when the people most likely to abuse children are: 1) parents; 2) family members; 3) other children. Child abuse by strangers is very rare indeed.
    Also, these (almost certainly) wrongly accused men will have to be paid compensation in the end too…

    • David Lindsay

      Some of them had better get a move on if they want compensation.

      For example, of all the many Dickensian things about the late Sir Jimmy Savile,
      perhaps none is more so than the fact that the National Westminster Bank, a name straight out of Dickens, is rapidly eating away great chunks of his estate in its capacity as the trustee, such that there might be none left for anyone who might be found to have a claim against it.

      That estate ought to be distributed forthwith, in undeviating accordance with Sir Jimmy’s last will and testament. All claims still standing after that will be deserving of further consideration and investigation, with no pecuniary motive. Those, and none other.

      Of course, he was not without his protectress. Claims could always therefore be made against her estate. He would have been at her funeral. Both that occasion and that person could only have been imagined by Trollope, if anyone, and then only as a joke. But that was no joke. We are.

      • MikeF

        “Of course, he was not without his protectress.” What a silly statement. You are, of course, referring to Mrs Thatcher and there is zero evidence that she had any knowledge about his – we must assume real but not legally proven – proclivities. At the time she invited him to Chequers, which she apparently did several times, his public reputation was that of an eccentric but dedicated charity fundraiser. Of course his reputation within closed worlds elsewhere – not least the BBC – was very different and the question of why he was allowed to act with impunity in those other environments remains to be answered. But whatever you think of Mrs T the notion that she would have turned a blind eye to paedophilia is utter nonsense.

        • Guest

          the Prime Minister of the UK is kept in the dark by Mabout the company she keeps as honoured guest at Chequers?

          I don’t think so.

          • Paul J

            I very much doubt she was kept in the dark about Peter Morrison MP, who she made her PPS.

            • David Lindsay

              Ssshhh, you must never mention that.

              Yes, of course. Him, Savile, Laurens van der Post. Jonathan King and Gary Glitter were also prominent supporters and generous donors. She surrounded herself with them.

              • Eddie

                Yes, but is there anything wrong in any man having sexual relations with any young man or woman aged 16 or over? Or is it just the gay thing that disturbs people?
                Moreover, many Muslims here marry off their 13 year old girls to counsins in Pakistan, and 13 year olds had adult relations in Victorian England too.

                • Neil Saunders

                  Oh, I see. So that makes it right, does it?

          • David Lindsay

            Exactly. She knew more about him than the rest of us ever will.

            This will happen, I am told: if all of Savile’s money is gone, then they will be after Thatcher’s.

            • GUBU

              Whoever ‘they’ are, they have as much chance of getting money from Mrs Thatcher’s estate as we have of getting sense from you.

              Lining your hat or cap with tinfoil might stop those voices.

            • Oscar Jones

              don’t be silly.

      • salieri

        “Of course, he was not without his protectress.Claims could always therefore be made against her estate.” As a dog returns to its vomit, so you must bring Margaret Thatcher into everything you possibly can: you moan about the coverage of her death while perpetuating it with undisguised glee.

        But stop for a moment and consider the extraordinary stupidity of what you just said: that she was Savile’s “protectress” and claims could “therefore” be made against her estate. Let’s leave aside your fatuous ignorance of vicarious liability. You are accusing her of nothing less than complicity in an appalling chapter of crime and that makes you not a joke but a disgrace. Go and write another book about yourself, and leave the dead in peace. What a pity you can’t be sued for libel.

        • Trevor English

          Don’t feed the trolls.

          • salieri

            You’re quite right of course. Sometimes, though, disgust just gets the better of one.

        • David Lindsay

          I am told that this one is being seriously considered: if the NatWest has eaten up Savile’s estate, then they will go after Thatcher’s. Wonderful invention, this Internet thingy.

      • Oscar Jones

        why stop there ?. How about all those former work mates like Gambo who say they knew but kept quiet and tabloid editors claim likewise ?
        Sue them all I say.

      • Neil Saunders

        Oh, they don’t like you, David. You’re sailing dangerously close to the truth.

    • Liz

      “but from what I hear”

      From what you hear from this blog?

      • Eddie

        No, thicko feminutsy stalker thing, what I mean is what I hear about the accusations made against these ageing celebrities which mostly seems to involve some middle-aged poor compo-sniffer bursting into tears about how they were ‘abused’ in 1976 when some TV person touched their knee (when they were about 18 years old).
        It’s called a bandwagon, love, and I think many accusation od abuse are fabricated or embellished and exaggerated out of all proportion at best.
        But of course, manhaters like you don’t care about fairness and justice, so long as men get their lives destroyed.
        In time, the lies will all come out, and the witch hunt will be exposed – and then I hope those who have instigated it will get punished (but seeing as women who falsely cry raape get no punishment at all, I am not holding my breath).
        But I for one do not think Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, Dave Lee Travis et al are guilty of anything at all. Savile is a different matter.
        By the way, do you know that most children who are killed are killed by women? Most emotional and violent abuse is done by women too. And most sexuual abuse is done with the knowledge of women, often because they have unstable single mother homes and give their many boyfriends access to their kids.

        • Maisey Mouse

          Re: “Savile is a different matter”

          Jimmy Savile is the one I believe is innocent at the moment – I don’t know enough about the accusations against the others to form an opinion but it honestly would not surprise me if they have all been set up too.

          And note that Jimmy Savile is the only one who is not bloody alive to defend himself and has had no one defend him.

          Jimmy Savile was not charged or convicted either and there has been NO investigation into the accusations against him. False accusations were just taken down and presented to the public as fact and operation Yewtree have been quite clear about that.

          This conspiracy will not stay hidden for ever. 😉

          • Eddie

            I agree to an extent. It is easy when someone’s dead – they cannot sue. Thus we get Alfred Hitchcock portrayed as a pervery groping rappist on a TV drama (typical BBC feminist drama); thus dead men are constantly accused of dodginess by an amoral media.
            I too believe a lot of the accusations against Savile are just examples of compo-chasers jumping on the bandwagon – plenty of middle aged women who had their knees touched when they were 17 in 1975. Is that really abuse?
            Well, a female manager at a college alwasy used to touch my arm. I didn’t like it, but as I was one of 3 men in a department with 50 women, any complaint would have made things difficult. Have I been abused too then?
            As you, I believe we need a proper investigation there and evidence must be produced. I never ever believe anyone of a crime is automatically guilty – especially men accused of so-called ‘abuse’. Why? Because I know how wome and children lie – and many women see a false accusation like this as ammunition to win the war (of child custody, perhaps).
            People will always believe a woman over a man, and so men are very vulnerable – all the more reason we need full anonymity for men accused of such things, and also we need to arrest, charge and if found guilty punish harshly all those who make false allegations (for the sake of those who do not cry wolf, women and children included).

            • Maisy Mouse

              Re: “and also we need to arrest, charge and if found guilty punish harshly all those who make false allegations (for the sake of those who do not cry wolf, women and children included)”

              Exactly. The self righteous indignant LIARS involved in this who demand to be ‘believed’ no matter how spurious and unlikely sounding their claims and have some kind of warped aganda fail to realise that it is THERE behavior that is most damaging to those who have been really and genuinely abused they are the ones responsible for setting precedents for false accusations and raising the frequency of them and degrading the whole thinking around child abuse and sexual abuse to a farce.

              There would be very little or no need at all to doubt any accusations of abuse if these losers had not set precedents for it.

              I think the women who accused Jimmy Savile from that approved school are DEFINITELY lying by the way.

              I’m not saying this to be cruel, I just believe it to be the truth.

    • Fergus Pickering

      I was abused by a total stranger. It must have been my wolf cub uniform. Kicking the bugger and running away is good. And it’s not as rare as all that.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here