It was perhaps inevitable that after the Jimmy Savile allegations, the Metropolitan and other police forces would go to town on “other” historic sexual abuse allegations.
First of all I must say that in law Jimmy Savile is innocent, he is deceased and unable to defend the allegations against him so will always remain innocent. To be perfectly honest with the Duncroft allegation debunked by Anna Raccoon who was there at the time, Savile is very likely totally innocent anyway.
The Metropolitan and other police forces went to town on “other” historic sexual abuse allegations, and there was no shortage of them. After all the police forces advertised for them and these historic sex abuse advertising campaigns were aided by the BBC.
We can look at one claim made by a high profile radio and TV personality made against Rolf Harris after Mr Harris’ conviction. Vanessa Feltz claimed that Mr Harris had groped her by putting his hand up her skirt while they were lounging on a bed together on the morning TV show The Big Breakfast. This was allegedly done in front of a live audience and rolling cameras. But Ms Feltz states that nobody noticed. This does not seem credible and whilst the video of this episode of The Big Breakfast undoubtedly exists and is easily available, neither Ms Feltz nor Channel 4 have ever produced it and shown it to the very people to which they have made the claim. Those people are you and I. I am certain that I am one of many in wanting to see this episode so I can assess for myself the accuracy of Ms Feltz’ claim because it sounds absurd.
First of all I must say that in law Jimmy Savile is innocent, he is deceased and unable to defend the allegations against him so will always remain innocent. To be perfectly honest with the Duncroft allegation debunked by Anna Raccoon who was there at the time, Savile is very likely totally innocent anyway.
The Metropolitan and other police forces went to town on “other” historic sexual abuse allegations, and there was no shortage of them. After all the police forces advertised for them and these historic sex abuse advertising campaigns were aided by the BBC.
We can look at one claim made by a high profile radio and TV personality made against Rolf Harris after Mr Harris’ conviction. Vanessa Feltz claimed that Mr Harris had groped her by putting his hand up her skirt while they were lounging on a bed together on the morning TV show The Big Breakfast. This was allegedly done in front of a live audience and rolling cameras. But Ms Feltz states that nobody noticed. This does not seem credible and whilst the video of this episode of The Big Breakfast undoubtedly exists and is easily available, neither Ms Feltz nor Channel 4 have ever produced it and shown it to the very people to which they have made the claim. Those people are you and I. I am certain that I am one of many in wanting to see this episode so I can assess for myself the accuracy of Ms Feltz’ claim because it sounds absurd.
|
|
Look at the photo's of them on the bed. How could Rolf or ANYBODY get their hand up that skirt at all, never mind all the way to her knickers and INSIDE the elastic- and without anybody noticing? What rubbish!
The absurdity of Ms Feltz' claim is entrenched when one looks at the YouTube video below.
Who is she to talk when we have a clip of her cavorting in such a lewd manner in front of a live audience and rolling cameras with another, thankfully uncharged, Yewtree victim?
Feltz currently works for the BBC so What exactly are the BBC up to allowing one of their celebrities to make this absurd uncorroborated claim?
However the question remains, where did the claim come from? The TV company nor Ms Feltz will produce the clip and for that reason I think it is fabricated.
Why would she fabricate such a claim? This might be a reason - sound familiar?
Feltz currently works for the BBC so What exactly are the BBC up to allowing one of their celebrities to make this absurd uncorroborated claim?
However the question remains, where did the claim come from? The TV company nor Ms Feltz will produce the clip and for that reason I think it is fabricated.
Why would she fabricate such a claim? This might be a reason - sound familiar?
|
It just sounds too familiar doesn't it? Same old story!
The Met police trawl for 'victims', the BBC advertise for 'victims' all using the same rhetoric, then along comes Vanessa Feltz who happens to have done an 'on the bed' slot with Rolf Harris and HEY PRESTO! On yer bike Feltz! |
Other celebrities
Of the allegations against other celebrities, few have any credibility, the exception being that of another BBC TV presenter, Stuart Hall. The allegations against him came to light in a rather unusual fashion. He was charged with a number of indecent assaults, and one count of rape. He denied all the allegations emphatically, but when the time came to enter a plea, he admitted the lesser charges, and the rape charge was dropped. Although there was no public announcement, it is clear that he was offered a deal: we will drop the rape charge if you plead guilty to all the others.
Hall was given an 18 month sentence, but after public outrage, this was doubled on an Attorney General’s reference. Hall has now been convicted of another 2 offences but acquitted of others. Hall is now 86 years old.
This brings us to the investigation/arrests and/or prosecutions of numerous high profile people including;
Of the allegations against other celebrities, few have any credibility, the exception being that of another BBC TV presenter, Stuart Hall. The allegations against him came to light in a rather unusual fashion. He was charged with a number of indecent assaults, and one count of rape. He denied all the allegations emphatically, but when the time came to enter a plea, he admitted the lesser charges, and the rape charge was dropped. Although there was no public announcement, it is clear that he was offered a deal: we will drop the rape charge if you plead guilty to all the others.
Hall was given an 18 month sentence, but after public outrage, this was doubled on an Attorney General’s reference. Hall has now been convicted of another 2 offences but acquitted of others. Hall is now 86 years old.
This brings us to the investigation/arrests and/or prosecutions of numerous high profile people including;
|
Not charged
Not charged Not charged Not charged Not charged Not charged Not charged Not charged Not guilty Not guilty Not guilty Not guilty Not guilty Convicted - convicted but with a large question mark??? |
Of all the failed prosecutions and investigations into innocent men, the law of averages gives that eventually an innocent man will be convicted, and this is it.
The allegations against Mr Harris relate to events that allegedly occurred before most people reading this were born. For an individual to come forward with new allegations after so long – even for a crime as serious as sexual assault - is extraordinary, and for such an allegation to be considered credible, more so.
Something else about this trial in particular, which no mainstream commentators appear to have noted, is the dishonest rhetoric that surrounds it.
To begin with, these were not four women who had come forward independently to point the finger at an otherwise unknown individual who had targeted them all in broadly similar circumstances, as might women who had been attacked by a genuine serial rapist, or less seriously had their handbags stolen. This trial and the other trials future and present was the result of a trawl. When the Savile story exploded, the police effectively put up a sign asking people – men as well as women – to come forward and make allegations against celebrities. If they did so they would be listened to uncritically (something that seldom happens in historic abuse cases for obvious reasons), they would be guaranteed anonymity if the individuals they accused were not charged or convicted, an anonymity they could waive in the event of any sort of conviction in order to claim compensation and perhaps to sell their stories to one of the scandal sheets, in addition to that they would enjoy an all expenses paid jaunt (to the capital in the case of Mr Harris) with hotel accommodation and meals thrown in.
This opened the door to any toxic women, women who were unemployed, in financial difficulty or simply bored and wanted to make a bit of easy money, all they had to do was point a finger.
DLT summed it up succinctly: his accusers could “smell money”.
Other such incriminating “evidence” was both less persuasive and even more dishonest. One of DLT’s accusers was exposed as a brazen liar in a most convincing fashion. He was alleged to have groped her while opening a hospital radio station, but someone who read about the case in the Sun tabloid newspaper contacted his legal team and revealed he had made an amateur video of the visit, which showed that Travis had been accompanied by his wife, and had no opportunity to grope anyone.
Thinking back to Mr Harris. It would be difficult to think of a more unlikely candidate for serial sexual abuse of either children or adults.
Over recent years in the United Kingdom numerous celebrities have had their lives thrown into turmoil by a gaggle of anonymous women, some of whom have proven to be outrageous liars. Feminists are constantly yelping that the treatment of rape victims, real and imagined, is disgraceful. After the fiascos of the numerous aquittals and the glaring lack of any evidence to support the convictions of Mr Harris, it is clear that as far as historic alleged sex offences of the nature seen in the celebrity trials are concerned, the law is considerably more disgraceful, and at the very least no such offence should ever be prosecuted without serious corroboration unless it was first reported at or shortly after it allegedly happened.
I don’t need to repeat what is already reported in this website but I want to conclude by pointing out that;
We have shown without any doubt that Rolf Harris never once went to the Leigh Park community centre but in court the lack of evidence was negated by the word of one woman who gave an uncorroborated account. This woman recently declared bankrupt and quite possibly a respondent to the media flurry and police trawl, was and remains the one and only person on whose word alone Mr Harris is convicted and serving a prison sentence for the Leigh Park allegation.
The police made extensive investigations into Wild’s claim and found that Mr Harris had never been to Leigh Park community centre. Therefore he could not have assaulted Wendy Wild there, but they prosecuted him for it anyway. The guilty verdict proves that the edict of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" no longer applies in English courts. Prosecutors are supposed to prove positive guilt because proving a negative can be impossible. Mr Harris has been left to prove that he didn't go to Leigh Park when it is supposed to be the other way around. Surely it is up to the prosecution to prove that he did?
In court it was shown beyond any doubt that the offence didn’t happen….so why was Mr Harris prosecuted? And why, with a Metropolitan Police officer on the jury who by virtue of his training would have seen clearly that Mr Harris was never at Leigh Park, did this jury find Mr Harris guilty?
Anne Pyke
The allegations against Mr Harris relate to events that allegedly occurred before most people reading this were born. For an individual to come forward with new allegations after so long – even for a crime as serious as sexual assault - is extraordinary, and for such an allegation to be considered credible, more so.
Something else about this trial in particular, which no mainstream commentators appear to have noted, is the dishonest rhetoric that surrounds it.
To begin with, these were not four women who had come forward independently to point the finger at an otherwise unknown individual who had targeted them all in broadly similar circumstances, as might women who had been attacked by a genuine serial rapist, or less seriously had their handbags stolen. This trial and the other trials future and present was the result of a trawl. When the Savile story exploded, the police effectively put up a sign asking people – men as well as women – to come forward and make allegations against celebrities. If they did so they would be listened to uncritically (something that seldom happens in historic abuse cases for obvious reasons), they would be guaranteed anonymity if the individuals they accused were not charged or convicted, an anonymity they could waive in the event of any sort of conviction in order to claim compensation and perhaps to sell their stories to one of the scandal sheets, in addition to that they would enjoy an all expenses paid jaunt (to the capital in the case of Mr Harris) with hotel accommodation and meals thrown in.
This opened the door to any toxic women, women who were unemployed, in financial difficulty or simply bored and wanted to make a bit of easy money, all they had to do was point a finger.
DLT summed it up succinctly: his accusers could “smell money”.
Other such incriminating “evidence” was both less persuasive and even more dishonest. One of DLT’s accusers was exposed as a brazen liar in a most convincing fashion. He was alleged to have groped her while opening a hospital radio station, but someone who read about the case in the Sun tabloid newspaper contacted his legal team and revealed he had made an amateur video of the visit, which showed that Travis had been accompanied by his wife, and had no opportunity to grope anyone.
Thinking back to Mr Harris. It would be difficult to think of a more unlikely candidate for serial sexual abuse of either children or adults.
Over recent years in the United Kingdom numerous celebrities have had their lives thrown into turmoil by a gaggle of anonymous women, some of whom have proven to be outrageous liars. Feminists are constantly yelping that the treatment of rape victims, real and imagined, is disgraceful. After the fiascos of the numerous aquittals and the glaring lack of any evidence to support the convictions of Mr Harris, it is clear that as far as historic alleged sex offences of the nature seen in the celebrity trials are concerned, the law is considerably more disgraceful, and at the very least no such offence should ever be prosecuted without serious corroboration unless it was first reported at or shortly after it allegedly happened.
I don’t need to repeat what is already reported in this website but I want to conclude by pointing out that;
We have shown without any doubt that Rolf Harris never once went to the Leigh Park community centre but in court the lack of evidence was negated by the word of one woman who gave an uncorroborated account. This woman recently declared bankrupt and quite possibly a respondent to the media flurry and police trawl, was and remains the one and only person on whose word alone Mr Harris is convicted and serving a prison sentence for the Leigh Park allegation.
The police made extensive investigations into Wild’s claim and found that Mr Harris had never been to Leigh Park community centre. Therefore he could not have assaulted Wendy Wild there, but they prosecuted him for it anyway. The guilty verdict proves that the edict of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" no longer applies in English courts. Prosecutors are supposed to prove positive guilt because proving a negative can be impossible. Mr Harris has been left to prove that he didn't go to Leigh Park when it is supposed to be the other way around. Surely it is up to the prosecution to prove that he did?
In court it was shown beyond any doubt that the offence didn’t happen….so why was Mr Harris prosecuted? And why, with a Metropolitan Police officer on the jury who by virtue of his training would have seen clearly that Mr Harris was never at Leigh Park, did this jury find Mr Harris guilty?
Anne Pyke
~
There is a petition calling for a review of this miscarriage which you can sign by following the link below:
https://www.change.org/p/review-the-conviction-of-rolf-harris-it-is-a-miscarriage-of-justice
https://www.change.org/p/review-the-conviction-of-rolf-harris-it-is-a-miscarriage-of-justice
