Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To be devastated about Rolf...

194 replies

GiddyStars · 19/04/2013 10:42

So Rolf Harris joins the list of those who have been arrested as part of Operation Yewtree (I know this is old news elsewhere but I don't read the Australian press).

I am distraught. I love Rolf and have always thought that he was a genuinely sweet and kind man. In fact I have said in the past to DH (following other high profile arrests), that if it ever came out that Rolf was horrid I would be devastated. And now I am.

He maintains no wrong doing. I will be upset either way. If he is found guilty and I have been wrong all these years or if he is innocent and an old man is about to be dragged through the mud.

Anyone else feel all out of kilter on hearing this or AIBU and a silly nostalgic?

OP posts:
BeerTricksPotter · 19/04/2013 19:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Sparklingbrook · 19/04/2013 19:11

Oh right Patchouli. What was he actually on TV wise in the 70s/80s, I can't think of anything. I remember Animal Hospital and the daft songs, but not much else?

everlong · 19/04/2013 19:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

imour · 19/04/2013 19:15

seems every other entertainer is an abuser , gone past being shocked at any one now !

DreamsTurnToGoldDust · 19/04/2013 19:21

He never weirded me out but I confess I never liked that beard which is odd as I loved David Wilkies moustach.

Patchouli · 19/04/2013 19:23

Sparkling: Cartoon Club, TOTP, The Rolf Harris Show, Probably several saturday morning things as well (Swap Shop/Tiswas etc). He was a well known personality on tv.

BeerTricksPotter · 19/04/2013 19:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

feeltheforce · 19/04/2013 19:48

I really don't think the media should release info on something so serious until he is charged. This kind of accusation ruins people's reputations forever. If it is true then we'll know soon enough. Shame though - I always liked Rolf.

ddubsgirl · 19/04/2013 22:38

He was asked questions NOT arrested! Yabu! He's hasn't been charged With anything

ThatVikRinA22 · 19/04/2013 22:44

shame to judge before anything concrete is proved. Anyone can be arrested on suspicion of an offence - it doesnt prove guilt. He has been bailed, which means the police are doing more digging - so why not just hold fire and see if he is charged or not.

StealthOfficialCrispTester · 19/04/2013 22:59

ddubs he was arrested

StealthOfficialCrispTester · 19/04/2013 23:00

Vicar, not sure I understand your post. Surely you're only arrested if there's enough evidence? Yes, the evidence doesn't prove your guilt, it suggests it, and your guilt is then decided in court.

ThatVikRinA22 · 19/04/2013 23:05

no stealth - im a police officer. anyone can be arrested on suspicion of an offence - proof is gained through questioning and evidence afterwards. so arrest on its own is proof of nothing. If enough evidence is found then you are charged with the offence for which you were arrested and you go to court or whatever.

arrest is simply one means of looking for more evidence.

StealthOfficialCrispTester · 19/04/2013 23:06

Thanks, I did know that :) I hadn't realised, but yes, that does make sense. So I could be arrested on suspicion of possessing drugs, but then they'd need to find evidence to back that up - and presumably a fridge full of chocolate doesn't count?

StealthOfficialCrispTester · 19/04/2013 23:07

But presumably initial suspicion comes from some evidence (not trying to get you to say anything you don't agree with btw!)
After all, I've never been arrested for murder, or drugs trafficking, or shooting a Scotsman outside the York city walls?

ThatVikRinA22 · 19/04/2013 23:16

not necessarily stealth.

if someone alleges something, then the police have a duty to investigate that allegation.

that can be done in several ways, arrest is just one. With something as hot a potato as sexual abuse - particularly in the wake of the saville enquiry - then there would be very little option other than arrest first and ask questions later.

i have arrested loads of folk who have not been charged with any offence. an offence can only be proved if evidence exists. If a person is bailed then there are clearly enquiries to be done. it means nothing either way. he will either be charged, or not charged. the arrest itself does not prove anything one way or another.

if someone is stopped having forgotten something in their shopping trollye then technically its theft. they can be arrested, then can you question that person, under caution, to find out what happened, and you may come to the conclusions that it was genuine error and release them without charge. or maybe you decide they need to expain to a court of law and let them decide.

or
you may need to bail them pending getting the CCTV footage which will prove or disprove the offence.

or
you may decide arrest is inappropriate and question them under caution but without arresting them.

there are several ways to gain evidence. Arrest is just one of them, but on its own does not prove guilt, or otherwise.

does that help or just confuse things more? Grin

StealthOfficialCrispTester · 19/04/2013 23:22

Yes that does help. Thanks

ExcuseTypos · 19/04/2013 23:30

Unfortunately his arrest doesn't come as a surprise. There have been "rumours" about him many years, in the entertainment industry.

aldiwhore · 19/04/2013 23:42

Arrested, not charged, certainly not tried yet, therefore assumed innocent at present.

There doesn't need to be evidence for you to be arrested. You can be arrested in connection with a crime, and be innocent, without ever being charged... I know as I have been (not in relation to a serious crime I hasten to add) and was totally innocent and not charged.

I do get a little cross when people aren't surprised that some have been accused yet other haven't, but I DO understand why.

Creepy guys are always assumed guilty, and we're ALWAYS more disgusted by them. Look at steve tyler versus gary glitter... Gary Glitter looks a lot more 'weird' and unattractive, his crimes were gross, but he is absolutely loathed for it (rightly, probably) yet Steve Tyler has given his approval to biogs that rather proudly state his dubious and disgraceful actions in the past, with children (one specific child, who's parents signed over guardianship to ST so he could live with her, and get her pregnant numerous times - all ending in abortion) but hey ho... he's still very successful.

I'm sad that Rolf Harris is in the frame, I hope he's innocent, or rather I hope that the police have sufficent evidence against him to validate his arrest (if that makes sense). Although I understand the lack of surprise regarding Jim Davidson, I worked with him when I was 18 for 8 months, and though he was a letch, and he was 'cheeky' (cheesy, vom inducing cheeky) and rude, a masogynist, a tragic figure, and although he had women QUEUING at his dressing room each night to get what he referred to as his "pre-show BJ" I have to say, after spending most evenings with him and his followers, he never to my knowledge preyed on under age girls... in fact, he wasn't fussy, there was one particular 'duo' a woman and her mother... the daughter was 28. So although I understand, there's an element of doubt for me. Again, he's not been tried, therefore must be assumed to be innocent, even if we wouldn't be surprised once found guilty.

I strongly believe that everyone should remain anonymous until verdict, because of the utter devastation caused by public naming the accused if they are then found innocent... because that kind of mud sticks, and I don't believe the means justifies the end.

RhondaJean · 19/04/2013 23:43

Vicar, what I am wondering is why would his name have been officially released today?

There was a thread on here about him being arrested a few weeks ago and MNHQ popped in to point out we had no name, only age and location so anything else was speculation. Does the name being released means there is something more happening behind the scenes?

I am upset too, he still isn't convicted of anything, but I really never thought of him, the first saville threads months back, people went through names and Rolf came up and everyone went no not him.

Blind sided if there is any truth in it.

ThatVikRinA22 · 19/04/2013 23:45

no. having his name released or leaked to media is proof of nothing other than trial by media.

McNewPants2013 · 19/04/2013 23:53

I can not believe that that posters here, who are normally supportive of 'we belive you' campaign would say the people who have reported Rolf Harris are lying.

Every poster who have put a negitive spin on this story is guilty of not believing someone who has ''maybe" have been through abuse

RhondaJean · 19/04/2013 23:57

Ah ok it just seemed odd timing to me, given that it's been "common knowledge" online for weeks.

Thanks!

SquirrelNuts · 19/04/2013 23:59

I hope its not true! i remember watching him when i was a kid on animal hospital. I can believe it of Saville but i just cant see that it can be true of Rolf, but we'll see!

Worriedmumofan8yearoldgirl · 20/04/2013 00:00

Saddened, yes, surprised, no.

I heard a story of how he acted with young women of a dubious age and its safe to say he has acted questionably.