Yes Rolf, We Can Tell What You Are – You Are a Remorseless Child Abuser

Will Black is a writer and journalist with a background in anthropology and mental health care.

His latest book, Psychopathic Cultures and Toxic Empires, examines the corrupting influence powerful psychopaths have on societies. Examples of psychopathic and toxic cultures addressed include those within paedophile rings, politics, finance, gangs, security services, religious organisations and the media. As well as identifying distinctive characteristics of psychopathic cultures, Black highlights inherent weaknesses of organisations built on deceit and corruption.

Will also writes for the Huffington Post


When sex abuser Rolf Harris did his slapdash paintings on TV, surrounded by children, he used the catchphrase “Can you tell what it is yet?” Harris himself was also something of a sketchy cartoon figure then, as erratic and nebulous as his manic paintings and peculiar songs.

Given what we now know about Harris, his catchphrase is quite chilling. He could just as easily have been saying “Can you tell what I am yet?”, in a similar way to how Savile can appear to be taunting society in those hideous photos of him leering smugly, surrounded by children or politicians.

So pleased was Harris with his catchphrase that he used it as the title of his 2001 autobiography. By the time that book was released, one of Harris’ victims had confronted him about abusing her and disclosed the abuse to her parents. Therefore, Harris was well-aware that the cartoon veneer he presented to the world could rapidly be replaced by a stark image of a manipulative abuser. For an offender who abused a child while his daughter slept nearby, it is possible that this knowledge that the cartoon image could melt away and the predator be revealed would have added to his twisted thrill. Nevertheless, he did what he could to protect his image and fortune.

After Harris was confronted by one of his victims, in Norfolk, he sent a letter to her dad containing terms like “atone”, “forgiveness” and “self-loathing”. He also said he was “sickened” by himself. The victim in question was a friend of his daughter, and he reportedly targeted her from the age of 13.

The letter, which was written in 1997, reads: “Since that trip up to Norfolk, I have been in a state of abject self-loathing. How we delude ourselves. I fondly imagined that everything that had taken place had progressed from a feeling of love and friendship – there was no rape, no physical forcing, brutality or beating that took place.

“When I came to Norfolk, [the victim] told me that she had always been terrified of me and went along with everything that I did out of fear of me. I said ‘Why did you never just say no?’. And [the victim] said how could she say no to the great television star Rolf Harris. Until she told me that, I had no idea that she was scared of me. She laughs in a bitter way and says I must have known that she has always been scared of me. I honestly didn’t know.

“[The victim] keeps saying that this has all been going on since she was 13. She’s told you that and you were justly horrified, and she keeps reiterating that to me, no matter what I said to the contrary.”

Harris goes onto write: “When I see the misery I have caused [the victim] I am sickened by myself. You can’t go back and change things that you have done in this life – I wish to God I could. When I came to Norfolk, spent that time with [the victim] and realised the enormity of what I had done to [the victim], and how I had affected her whole life, I begged her for forgiveness and she said ‘I forgive you’.

“Whether she really meant it or not, I don’t know. I hope she did, but I fear she can never forgive me. I find it hard to like myself in any way, shape or form. And as I do these animal programmes, I see the unconditional love that dogs give to their owners and I wish I could start to love myself again. If there is any way that I could atone for what I have done I would willingly do it. If there is a way I can start to help [the victim] to heal herself, I would willingly do it.”

It would appear now, however, that Harris has got over this fleeting pang of apparent remorse, to the extent that he has written a song in prison attacking his victims. In the song he calls his victims “slimy little woodworm” and “wenches”, and he accuses them of “joining the feeding frenzy” and trying to get their “hooks into his dough”. This is rich coming from an abuser who sent a crocodile tear-splattered letter to a victim’s family, presumably to protect his lucrative career.

The song was included in a letter posted from Stafford Prison. Harris was moved to the Category C prison not long into his sentence for multiple assaults on girls. In the letter Harris says “after eight months inside, the inner rage has come to the fore. I’ve started writing a song about the injustice of it all.” He goes onto say that he plans to record it as soon as he is released in 2017. This suggests Harris assumes he will be granted parole at the earliest opportunity, as he received a five years and nine months sentence in 2014.

Commenting on the letter and song, solicitor Liz Dux, who has represented Harris’ victims, told BBC Radio 4: “I am calling for this letter to be shown to the parole board and for it to be taken into account when deciding when to release him. The whole point of parole is for people to show some sort of remorse and understanding of their actions when they return into society, and here is someone who is clearly behaving as he was before, with complete distain.”

Harris may be released from prison before he dies, but I would suggest his rehabilitation has much further to go if he doesn’t recognise that the public sees him as a child abuser first and foremost. He was never much of an artist anyway and nobody wants to listen to a sex attacker smearing his victims.


Filed under Abuse

79 responses to “Yes Rolf, We Can Tell What You Are – You Are a Remorseless Child Abuser

  1. Will Black

    Alan Stead, as I’ve said this isn’t all about you. It’s an article about how convicted child abuser Rolf Harris is smearing victims and, as some of the comments have also perpetuated that, the undermining of victims on social media etc has obviously come up in the comments.

    Your insistence that people should discuss every point you make as though it all revolves around you is curious but that’s nothing to do with me. You are one of a number of people who commented below an article and you have written many more words that the article is long. I’m sure most people are too busy working to sit waiting to give their full attention and articulate a response to every random person who comments below any article. You talk of me “standing back” while you were “abused” by other people. No, I was having a life and I certainly don’t regard it as my job to stick up for every stranger who gets themselves in a tizzy online.

    Once again, it’s not all about you. I don’t personally know most people who respond to things I’ve written and don’t have time or the inclination to investigate them and their integrity (or otherwise). The article is about a man abusing girls and then smearing them in a letter and song and my comments are general points about victims being smeared online. There’s no point me commenting on people who comment as don’t know them and it’s very peripheral.

  2. dpack

    what a strange thread

    convicted yep

    described as an “arrogant ,creepy bastard” by an adult who met him while running a hotel bar . yep

    moderate if derivative painter yep

    his recent output is nasty yep

  3. Sometimes… even if you have a history like mine, you can get fooled. because you want to be fooled. I didn’t care about Savile, or Clifford…. but i was very sad that the man who wrote “two little boys” had gone to prison, even tho he deserved it.
    But then this song came out. And I am horrified.Any empathy i have has just drained away… totally.

  4. nuggy

    will black questioning a conviction is not contempt of court in law neather is it libel.

    and this sounds very much like a veiled threat you cant win arguments with threats.

    • Will Black

      This isn’t an argument. I wrote something that is true and a few victim attackers, abuser supporters and people who understand nothing about law had little hissy fits.

      Other informed people, along with myself, have explained the situation ad nauseum, and there is no point arguing with willful ignorance or deliberate distortions. I’m not talking about you particularly Nuggy, you haven’t said much

      • Alan Stead

        Will: You sound as if you want to be regarded as an authority; someone whose opinion is beyond question. You also seem to be authoritarian; “What I say is right; if you question any element of it, you are a “heretic.”‘ You also seem to love labelling and categorising people: “victim attackers,” “abuser supporters” and “people who understand nothing.” If you like fitting people into boxes so much, then I guess you must have a box yourself; if you are consistent. When everybody can be categorised then there is nothing to say anymore, because once somebody has been categorised, you know their entire position. What is there to discuss? People are what they are: “for us or against us,” “good or evil,” and if they don’t support everything we stand for 100%, they are “victim attackers,” “abuser supporters” and “people who understand nothing.” They must be because we say so and who can argue with that?
        This will be my last comment on this topic. I have put forward some points above which you don’t even consider worth responding to. Why? Because you have decided what I am…………… what more is there to be said? You must be right. How could it be any other way? Perhaps in the future, Century 21 will be described as a turning point in the history of ideas: pre-Black and post Black.

  5. Will Black

    Alan Stead, it’s not all about you. I was speaking generally, based on years of observing victim smearing on social media and blogs.

    In relation to many of these cases of abusers, including Rolf Harris, it is potentially quite easy for someone to wander into contempt of court if they persist with the allegation that the jurors and judge were negligent and inept in their work. It’s a particular problem when recently convicted abusers, as many are, are facing further allegations / charges.

    In terms of libel, this is very simple and people don’t have to go as far as some have about Harris’s victims. They simply have to suggest that a victim is a liar in order to be open to an easy libel claim.

    It is testament to the decency of victims – and proof that they are not motivated by money – that they don’t sue every slimy misogynistic creep who calls them a liar online (again, I’m speaking generally – this happens all the time on Twitter).

    • Alan Stead

      Will. Let me just make something clear. I am a person who is concerned about real victims of sexual abuse getting justice and about being able to find closure. It is true that the emotional fallout from abuse often stays with a person their whole life long, and can be an impediment to their ability to trust and form relationships. I am interested in true justice; meaning punishing the guilty and aquitting the innocent.
      One concern I have is the speed at which “celebrities” are dealt with and the slowness with which people higher up the social ladder seem to be dealt with. It is not within my power to know who is guilty and who is innocent; but the slowness and obstacles surrounding the investiagation of two prominent and influential persons I can think of (one died whilst under investigation, the other was declared unfit for the process), makes me a little uncomfortable. Again, a personal opinion, not an accusation.
      Perhaps the seeming rush to get a high profile celebrity conviction could be a mistake. Miscarriages of justice do occur: the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four for example. How would that have made the victims families feel? The men they thought were guilty, had been themselves treated unjustly, and all the old wounds would have been opened up again for the victims’ families.
      Also, if your comments about smearing victims are general, and refer to them being abused on Twitter for example, I am prepared to accept that. (To be fair to you, that may be what you thought I was doing. To me it seemed as if you were standing back whilst I was abused by other people; people with made up names and people making comments to discredit me as a troll or as working for GCHQ).
      Having said that, I agree with nuggy’s comments that it sounds as if you are making veiled threats. You also do not seem to like it when people disagree with you. If we give the impression of being infallible, it only takes one torpedo to sink that boat. I also think you make a mistake in the kind of language you use, which in effect, demonises your opponents. It is easy to label people as “monsters,” “perverts” etc. It is a coping mechanism. But is name calling and “labelling” really effective? Perhaps it leads to black and white thinking; which as far as true justice is concerned is very dangerous. Remember, “justice” should be “blind,”…that is impartial. Think me naive, but I always like to treat people with respect and dignity. In the long run I think the cause of justice is far better served by approaching things in this way.
      One final comment: There is a saying: “if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen,” and this could be applied to me in not just shaking off insults like water of a ducks’ back. On the other hand, you are a person with a background in mental health and/or psychiatary, I believe. Perhaps being just a little more trusting and a little less cutting in your comments could save you wounding people who want the same or similar things to you. Like it takes victims a lot of courage to stand up and say what happened to them; some of us who try to help the oppressed do so because we have had some hard things happen to us in life as well; yet we still take the risk in order to try and help others.
      Let’s try to do everything in our power to avoid being criticised with due cause, whilst we are trying to seek justice for the oppressed.

  6. TheIntercept

    N-ationstate spies
    S-preading web discord
    A-nonymous Trolls of the 1%

  7. EricBlairIsGod

    G-oing online
    C-reating divisions
    H-elping The State

  8. nuggy

    im getting a bit fed up with the lack of obejectivity on both sides of this argument as well

    your starting to sound like to waring relgions.

    • Will Black

      Actually I think the Needle Blog has been very balanced and that’s why I’m willing to write on here.

      In relation to Harris (and other convicted abusers), the legal status is that he’s a convicted abuser of children, with many already proven allegations and more in the pipeline.

      Disregarding the court’s careful findings could potentially be contempt of court and also many of the comments smearing victims are libellous under British law.

      • Alan Stead

        Hello Will. I find your comments above rather strange. You seem to be responding in part to what nuggy said, which is in turn a response to what I said. Ted Heath-en also responded to what I said. I wish to respond to both of you, but I can’t respond to Ted because he hasn’t responded to me directly yet. Will, my understanding of contempt of court is that a person has to be disrespectful towards the court or its procedings or judgments for it to be contempt. Please note, all I have done is expressed an opinion about how I feel, based on what I know; and I have said that, to paraphrase, “in one instance, I would have been more likely to disbelieve rather than believe the evidence offered.” That is a carefully worded opinion, expressed in a way which gives my opinion but also leaves open the possibility that I am wrong. I cannot see how that is disrespectful towards the court. Secondly, I find it strange that you can speak in general about “smearing victims” and how that may be libel under British law, but not say which people are smearing victims; because libel cannot be against a group of people (victims), but has to be against a specific person; again if my understanding is correct. You are obviously an intelligent man, and perhaps my point carries more weight when I point out that if you had read the comments that Ted Heath-en made in reply to my post, that it seems, if my understanding is correct, that would or may be a case of libelling me. However, my attitude to Ted Heath-en is that whoever “he” is, he feels very strongly about this issue and although he appears to have possibly libelled me, on this occasion I am prepared to overlook it because my feeling is that his heart is probably in the right place.

        Now Ted Heath-en. This comment is for you. I have been called “child hating scum,” “thick” and “evil,” all of which could potentially damage my reputation. Ted, please do not repeat any of these statements about me. I had the honesty to use my real name; I don’t think Ted Heath-en is your real name. I am not an apologist for child abusers. Read carefully what I said: I have been in a long term relationship with a person who has suffered sexual abuse; and it affected my life as well! I am for those who have been abused, but what I do not do is buy into simplistic views of the world, where anybody who questions anything related to sexual abuse offences or accusations must be an abuser or sympathiser themselves.

  9. Alan Stead

    I have seen at first hand the damage that sexual abuse can do to people; having been in a long term relationship with an abused person. Having said that, it concerns me that some of the comments on here lack objectivity. It seems that if you do not believe every single claim which is being made, that leaves you open to being tarred with the same brush as the offenders. People seem to want to divide the world into two kinds of people; victims and offenders, and of course their respective supporters. This seems overly simplistic to me; but it seems to fit in well with the modern attitude of not feeling that the public are capable of making rational judgments any more. In seeking to protect children, which of course is right, I think that some people become like children in their thinking.

    Regarding Rolf Harris; yes he has been convicted by a jury in a court of law. But to be honest I find it very difficult to believe that he could have sexually abused a girl in the same room as his daughter, and for his daughter not to wake up. Think about it. Now, Rolf Harris may have done this; although I would find it far less likely to be true, than for it not to be true. Then there is the problem of juries possibly finding people guilty because they feel that society expects them to.


      OK. Why not just do away with the entire justice & court system ?
      Let’s go back to the Dark Ages and not have the bother of: witnesses, experts, weeks of evidence thouroughly analysed from both points of view, defendents with as many professionals on their side as the accusers, ‘innocent until proven guilty’, countless police hours and our money spent on making sure that there is enough evidence for it to get to court, an unbiased bench full of jury who will thouroughly consider all of this evidence from both sides of the argument..etc.
      And WHY should we go back to the Dark Ages ? A really good reason i hope ?
      Well, because Monsters-and-their-Apologists have an irrational hatred & fear of children, are jealous of children, want to destroy children, and will murder our children to leave no witnesses.
      YES. Let’s set up the country to make it as CHILD-HATER FRIENDLY AS POSSIBLE…or…
      Because the more of you child-haters that hijack these sites, the MORE REAL PEOPLE WILL HATE YOU & the more we will defend our precious children and the more child-respecting policies we will ensure are brought Government policy..
      So your evil plans will backfire on you !
      Which means you are as THICK as you are EVIL !

      • Alan Stead

        This is a respectful question. Is your comment aimed at me because of what I said in my post? Please clarify.

  10. Will Black

    Quick things rarely go very deep P-NAC.

    I’ve looked into some of the people who troll and smear social workers and what I’ve found is long criminal records, abusive relationships, an inability to look after children or babies.

    Of course there have been injustices in the past but I haven’t seen any people involved with the current campaigns of hate who are connected to any of those knee jerk political decisions a few decades ago. These are primarily people with an axe to grind and a lot of bitterness, who regard social workers as an easy target in their inept battles with the authorities. Any, of course, they draw well-meaning supporters in, who may not be aware of the real history.

    It’s interesting to me that the term “my children” and “our children” are used so much. In reality parents don’t own children. Children are effectively under the care of all of society and all societies have mechanisms of intervening if parents are inadequate or abusive. You can’t just be a thick abusive idiot and manage to reproduce and get to ‘own’ another human being. Damage done to a child early on has an impact on all of society, as well as the individual child. We are all therefore responsible for all children.

  11. Sam

    Just a note, especially for all those who support Rolf Harris. In my personal experience, there is much more to Harris’s abuse history than ever came out in Court. Indeed, I personally gave evidence about other offences and activities I knew about back in the late 1970s. None of this was used in Court as that victim did not seek to make statements. I am as certain as I can be that there was much else that hasn’t seen the light of day. If the full truth were known, it’s possibly also true to say that the sentence Harris received was actually a kindly one.
    So it’s sad as well as frustrating to read all this anti-victim dismissive vitriol. It’s why so many victims have had justice denied over many decades – you’re the people who are aiding and abetting this abuse by your ‘culture of disbelief’.
    Harris, like other ‘celebrities’, politicians, priests and public service workers are paid to act as ‘good guys’. That includes pulling the wool over your eyes too. They do it very well.

    • Will Black

      Thank’s Sam, this smearing of victims must be infuriating and much of it is libelous of those who were abused by Rolf, as well as other ‘celebrities’.

      I know there are efforts being made by some, including readers of The Needle Blog, to investigate links between paedophile protectors who smear victims online and who attack campaigners and anyone writing about child abusers. I know this is coming to fruition and I’m sure people will post links to where things are with that. There are interesting links between some of them and other misinformation campaigns – for example, those attacking social workers.

      I posted the same piece on Huff Post, and though there are less comments than on here, a troubling proportion of them are of the paedo protecting nature. Unfortunatelty I can’t even reply to those because you need Facebook to comment on Huff Post and I hate FB.

      • P-NAC

        QUICK QUIZ
        Question: Who is paid and instructed to steal our children and put them into homes and institutions so that the wealthy & famous can abuse them ?
        Answer: ”SOCIAL” WORKERS…

  12. Abby

    Hi Will, I have no connection to his family, and initially thought when the news reports came out that he couldn’t be anything other than guilty of everything he was accused of and it must all be above board. It’s British justice, after all. But judging from the points raised in the petition/Facebook page, I do think questions should be asked about how fair the process was. I think the justice system should be fair, even for celebrities.

    Do you think that 1969 Australian newspaper article about him being in Australia at the time of the 1969 moon landing is irrelevant? Would you be happy to appear in court as a defendant facing an accuser who had already told/sold her story to the media a year before, with it also being on YouTube for that time?

  13. P-NAC

    …and like ALL Child-Haters, you are primarily a COWARD.
    In your case, hiding behind a false name and hiding behind a computer screen.
    Why don’t you do all of your Child-Hating IN FULL VIEW OF EVERYONE and without HIDING behind a false name ?
    COWARDS all of you…time to grow a pair…

  14. P-NAC

    Scabby. What moon did you child-haters land here from ?

  15. DR Laverty

    If it was a Justin Bieber’s name on that petition there’d be 100,000,000 signatures. Some say the Holocaust never happened.


      Just a thousand pervs out of a 7 billion population ?
      A journey of a thousand nonces begins with a single Monster..

  16. P-NAC

    mmmm..I wonder who is worth people’s valuable time and breath ?
    The countless, defenceless & voiceless victims of Child Abusers ? Or the evil Child Haters themselves and their equally evil apologists ?
    Why, that’s a tough one !

  17. P-NAC

    Of course, some nobody who gives the name ”Abby” must know better than an ENTIRE COURT TRIAL THAT LASTED WEEKS with expert witnesses and a JURY etc etc..not to mention the fact that MORE VICTIMS ARE COMING FORWARD ALL THE TIME FROM VARIOUS PARTS OF THE GLOBE ….oh, ..but surely some Lone Nobody calling themselves ”ABBY” MUST KNOW BEST..??

    • Will Black

      Yep, who needs a judicial system when you have random child abuser supporters smearing (and possibly libelling victims) on the internet.

  18. Abby

    Someone who hadn’t actually done what they were alleged to have done wouldn’t show remorse either. The women are all looking for money, including the one who sold her story before court, the one who was declared bankrupt in 2012 and the one who asked him for thousands before and was turned down. Regarding the Portsmouth autograph queue allegation, he was a big star in 1969 appearing at major venues, yet there were no council records or news reports of him being at the Portsmouth community centre that year or any other year. The two times the alleged victim gave, the moon landing or her birthday, are times anyone could remember from 1969, and there was a news report from 1969 putting him in Australia in July at the time of the moon landing. So the date was changed to her birthday and since he apparently couldn’t prove where he was that month, he was convicted of assaulting her in an autograph queue at what she now says was a junior disco at the community centre.

    • tracy vernon

      beam me up scotty ! the world really is full of nutters give them a screen and a keyboard and they turn into fruit loops !

      there are no more words …. oh apart from to say the picture of the queen was painted by a dirty old pervert and it was a vile piece anyway he can shove his didgerydoo where the sun don’t shine and i don’t want to even read about him. Let him rot and then die at least we found out whilst he is still on this planet!!!! and that ridiculous song influences a right thinking parole board that this disgrace of a human being does not feel remorse so keep the bastard where he is! thankyou and goodnight…….

      • Will Black

        Thank you Tracy, you seem to have silenced those who perpetuate a very dangerous narrative.

        The fact that a few people feel no restraint in saying that on here is interesting and we know that behind them there are many more who are too shrewd and self-protecting to say it.

  19. nuggy

    i was hoping he was going to play his wobble board in court but he never did.

    • David Rayner

      Under the circumstances, he probably didn’t feel like playing it…or his digeredoo.

      • Sabre

        If he had played with his own digeredoo or the digeredoos of consenting adults in the past he would have remained free to entertain us with his daubings, and musical masterpieces.

    • Sabre

      I understand that he did indeed wobble when he was weighed off.

  20. David Rayner

    By way of contrast to how such cases are treated today, here below is the transcript of a report in my local newspaper dated over 41 years ago on Tuesday, March 12th, 1974. I have changed the defendant’s name and address, but the rest is word for word. The report was considered so unimportant at the time that it was buried at the bottom of a column on one of the inside pages. Note how the now commonplace words ‘abuse’ and ‘paedophile’ are not used as that word didn’t start to come into the media until possibly the mid to late 1980’s, since when readers have been continually bashed over the head with it on a daily basis.

    “A 46 years old breadman indecently assaulted two boys who were helping him on his round, Stafford Borough Magistrates heard yesterday. Joseph Harrington, of Elizabeth Close, admitted two offences of indecent assault and one of gross indecency. He was fined a total of £35 with £12 costs. Mr Michael Durrell, prosecuting, said that the offences were committed after ‘horseplay’ in his van. The two boys concerned were aged 11 and 12.”

    • P-NAC

      Watch out ” David Rayner” . You are an apologist for pereverts.
      People might start thinking that you are one yourself….

      • David Rayner

        Are you bonkers? I don’t see how reproducing a news item from 1974 makes me an apologist for perverts. This is what was reported in the paper at the time. You sound to me like a totally paranoid person. If I reproduced the shipping forecast, you’d probably say the same thing.

    • Will Black

      Ah yes, those golden days when a man could falsely imprison and abuse children and it was called “horse play”. The days when (what is now called) rape or sexual assault by penetration was called indecent assault or “getting fresh” or “fooling around”. A bit like stabbing someone and calling it “banter”.

      I have concluded you must be a troll as I don’t think anyone who can get onto the internet can be this daft. Feel free to pepper the comments area with more nonsense I don’t think my efforts will help you see things any more clearly or empathetically.

    • Sabre

      A contrast indeed David, the conclusion is that the offences weren’t treated with sufficient gravity yesteryear.

  21. David Rayner

    No matter what he was convicted of, he was still a great entertainer in his day and I won’t be getting rid of his old Columbia singles from the early 1960s in my record collection, “Sun Arise”; “Johnny Day” and “The Five Young Apprentices”, which were all recorded long before he did what he was convicted of and were part of his public life, not his private life.


      Rolf Harris ”Great” ?!!
      Maybe in Rolf’s cell-bar imprisoned mind.
      What IS great is the scientific (biochemical) discovery that the gene for ‘CREEPY APOLOGISER/ENABLER” and the gene for ”LOUSY TASTE IN MUSIC” are linked in the human genome…
      …assuming you ARE human ?

  22. Pleased to see Rolf still has enough spirit left to see the funny side of all of this. A brave man. he seems to have poor judgement in his “friends” though. I did read one comment elsewhere to the effect that “friend” was Fleet-Street-speak for Home Office employee on the take. The things people say these days!

  23. David Rayner

    Well, if he wrote a letter to one of his victim’s families practically admitting he did those things and if the letter was proved to have been written by him, then I’m not surprised he was convicted, as he wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on, so to speak. In other words, his past had caught up with him and he should never have put that in writing. However, at 84 years of age, I doubt very much that he would want to molest girls now, as his libido must be non-existent these days and he would have no interest in such activities. A man’s body and sex drive changes as he grows older and older. I know, because I’m nearly 70 and my sexual feelings are practically zero now compared to what they were fifty years ago in the 1960s. So if I reach the ripe old age of 84, I’ll be really past it. I think when the time comes, he should get parole as he’s not going to be a danger to anyone at his age and what will he be then, 86? 87? His career is over and he’s been punished for what he did, as much as an old man can be punished. If it had all come to light decades ago, his sentence may well have been much longer.

    • Will Black

      David, no offence but you are looking at this too simplistically, to the extent that I wondered if you were trolling. Apologies if you aren’t.

      Sentences are not just to protect the public from imminent harm but also about the victims, their families and society to feel as though the person has been punished. Having his career ruined isn’t Harris punishment, that is something he brought on himself by being a child abuser.

      Secondly, abuse is not simply about sexual gratification. It can also be about power, control, sadism, a desire to corrupt and defile or mentally scar, a narcissistic effort to transgress societal rules etc etc (please see any interview I did on here with Guy Mankowski

      There are large number of abuse cases where the abuser’s genitals played no part. It’s still child abuse. Engaging children to do things with one another is still child abuse. The abuser being sexually stimulated by it is irrelevant. As I said above, abuse is more complicated than getting sexual gratification.

    • Sabre

      “His past caught up with him and he should never have put that in writing”
      Harris seems to have at least shown some remorse and shame in writing the apologetic letter, you on the other hand seem to find it acceptable to advise that he shouldn’t have done so in order to make good his escape !

  24. IWTT

    I was going to cite an article from that seeks to explain why Harris HAS to be given his half-term parole (and therefore his lack of remorse through writing this song does not change matters) but the entire UK CRIMINAL LAW BLOG appears to have been taken off line.

    • dotty

      “the entire UK CRIMINAL LAW BLOG appears to have been taken off line.” I got to it via the link you posted!

  25. Will Black

    David, you almost lost me at “played with sexually” – we are discussing someone convicted of multiple counts of abuse of children, and “witch hunt” – I could give you a list of 50 interconnected people who support existing child rape rings by littering the internet with the term “witch hunt”, so it sets alarm bells ringing.

    But, perhaps rather than jumping in to defend the widely-accepted to be mediocre art of Harris, you should have read the piece. The letter from Harris to one of his victim’s families (as cited almost in full) makes it quite clear that Harris recognised (at least then) that he’d got her to do things through fear, cohercion and control. She was a child and he was a middle aged man i.e. it was child sexual abuse.

    • Harris maintained nothing sexual happened until she was “of age”. However, he was obviously embarrassed to have been conducting an affair with his friend’s daughter, behind the back of his friend. I can see where the guilt would come in about that, no matter how old the daughter may have been. Did he mention her tapping him up for £20Grand in the same letter? My memory is not so good just now.

      • Will Black

        Hmm unrepentant, victim smearing serial child abuser Rolf Harris “maintained that…”, so what? He’s been proven to be a child abuser, a liar and has shown no remorse, his narcissistic wo is me whining is neither here nor there

    • Phil the truth

      In the name of fairness and transparency, as evil as committing any kind of sexual abuse against a child, or an adult for that matter is, there will always be some people who are equally as evil, that know no bounds when they see the opportunity to make some money at the expense of a innocent persons liberty, as as happened in the past.Anybody that makes an aaccusation of historical sexual abuse, should be made to undergo a lie detector test,and the results relayed to any potential Judge and Jury, at the earliest opportunity.

      • Complete rubbish.

        If you recall. Rolf Harris has been convicted in a court of law, tried before a jury of his peers.

        But really, part of the evidence was a letter written by himself apologising to one of his victims !

        How much proof do some people need ?

      • Sabre

        Lie detector evidence is inadmissible in US courts and has absolutely no chance of being admissible in UK courts.

      • P-NAC

        Sounds like a personal experience…

  26. David Rayner

    Never much of an artist? Come off it! Whatever else he may be, his painting of the Queen when she sat for him at Buckingham Palace was brilliant! Credit where credit is due, please!

    • Will Black

      Dear David Rayner, I don’t know you so it’s it hard to tell if you were wearing your sarcasm or irony hat as you wrote that post.

      I’m no visual artist but I know some and don’t know of any who rate Rolf Harris as a good artist. Being a notable artist is about originality and vision. I’m pretty sure any street portrait painter could have done an equal or better job of the queen. He wasn’t asked to do it because he’s regarded as a great artist, but because he was a well-known mainstream entertainer and it’s an obvious way of getting different generations absorb a bit of royal PR on the Queens birthday.

      One thing I find interesting about Harris’ art he has sold via galleries is the number of predators he has painted – notably big cats. There is one particular one showing a tiger swimming across a river at sunset, it does seem reminiscent of how he has looked since the accusations – struggling and stressed looking – though still ultimately a predator

      • David Rayner

        I was being neither ironic nor sarcastic. When I saw his finished portrait of the Queen, which, due to his present position, she may no longer have, I was very impressed. It was streets ahead of anything he painted on his television show. This has nothing to do with impressionist art or modern art, but a painting so lifelike and real that it looked as good as a photograph. That’s a great talent he has that is far from commonplace among artists.

        Now onto his case. It appears to me, seeing and hearing reports of the trial, that he was convicted without any proof of what was alleged to have taken place and that, with no real evidence to go on to enable them to arrive at their verdict, the jury was faced with a stark choice…whether to believe the accusers or the accused and to decide which one was the more convincing. Rolf may well have done all those things of which he was convicted but the truth is that if you say that someone played with you sexually forty years ago, there would be absolutely no way on earth of proving it unless the activity was filmed by the accused while he was doing it and the films had been found. In which case, there would have been no way he could have denied it.

        It is very easy to accuse anyone of this kind of activity that would have taken place in private decades ago and there are a lot of famous people recently who have been caught up in this present day witch hunt and the idea seems to be that it makes a great news story if they are found guilty, but not so great a news story if they are found to be innocent. These kind of cases seem to be the only ones where the defendant can be found guilty on no direct evidence, only heresay. Now I know that this doesn’t bode very well for the victims of the sadistic psychopaths whom they claim terribly abused them and in some cases murdered innocent children a very long time ago, but the main dilemma remains. How do you prove they did it decades after the event when there is neither any direct or forensic evidence to go on? If my understanding of the reporting of the Rolf Harris trial is wrong and I have missed some evidence that helped to convict him, please feel free to correct me.


      Yes. Brilliant the way it showed her evil, soul-less eyes…just like the painter’s…

  27. Name calling too. Impressive.

  28. DR Laverty

    Its a Rolf Harris post……….idiot. They’ll be a group for you somewhere to join.

  29. Davinia Ainslie

    Well this particular thread is about Rolf Harris isn’t it? I am sure that the vast majority of people would agree that the sexual abuse of children by adults of either gender is wrong and making comments about “Feminist-inspired witchhunt” simply undermines Mr Bowker’s credability.

    • Does it indeed, Davinia? I feel you protest a little too much. I have experience here of both false accusation and attempting to achieve justice for my own child who was sexually abused by a female. Police and CPS been fighting for three years now although they accept the accusation as valid. Studies are difficult to draw a conclusion from, in UK the consensus is that 5-20% of all child sex abuse is perpetrated by females. My country’s police force have confirmed through FOI that they have “detected” less than 0.5%! … the statistics are damning in my local area also NO instances have been “detected” in the past 3 years, whilst 78 male detections have been prosecuted. Yes, my credibility is very much undermined, isn’t it, Davinia??

  30. Shouldn’t we also be critisizing the money-grabbing liars who hitch onto the CICA bandwagon .. or the Feminist-inspired witchhunt from Saunders + Co in the CPS who happily look the other way when females sexually abuse our children in far far more serious ways than Harris ever did?

    • Will Black

      I’m not sure how you think that writing about one case suggests a lack of interest in others, or any other injustices and issues. In fact, the book cited above is full of a large number of abuse cases and other horrendous injustices. Including abuse is involving female perpetuators.

      I’m not sure a “Yeah, but what about THEM” approach to crime is helpful. Each and every case important, not just to the victims of that crime but to society in general.



    • Sam

      Mr Bowker, do you have any idea how extremely difficult it is to get anything out of the CICA? And before that, it’s extraordinarily difficult to get a lawyer to take on your case as a victim left with lifelong injuries and damages. One certainly wouldn’t even get past the law firm’s call-screener as a ‘money-grabbing liar’.

      So I wonder what your agenda might be in perpetuating this anti-victim spin??

  31. DR Laverty

    Reblogged this on DR Laverty.

  32. joekano76

    Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.