Operation Yewtree – The Sun’s “Exclusive” News re Latest Arrest – Which Media Knew In March

I wrote a few weeks ago about the strange antics of the press regarding Operation Yewtree, and the way in which the publication of the names of those being questioned and arrested seemed to depend on the public perception of the accused.

So the press had no scruples in announcing the questioning of people like Jim Davidson, Max Clifford, Dave Lee Travis and Gary Glitter – they are not, for various reasons, believed to be universally loved by the British public.

Last month the arrest of an 82 year old man, who shortly thereafter became an 83 year old man seemed to indicate that the media were, to some extent, “judging” whose arrests should be publicised.

As the Sun reveals today, in a front page ludicrously labelled “World Exclusive”, Rolf Harris is the 83 year old who has been arrested.

As a result of the Sun breaking “omerta” the rest of the media has rushed to follow suit.

I have no doubt that media organisations knew about Mr Harris being questioned last year, and being arrested last month. After all Guido Fawkes on his blog broke the story of the investigation last year! Based on the number of his stories which then pop up in the mainstream media, the press knew about Mr Harris, even if only from reading Guido!

So why reveal the story now?

Was it a slow news day for the Sun?

What has happened in the last 24 hours to make it a front page splash today, rather than yesterday or tomorrow?

The Sun report even says that the media have been camped outside Mr Harris’ home since last month.

Mr Harris is said to be denying any wrongdoing.

As I mentioned in my last piece, I have a horrible fear that the Savile/Yewtree investigations will have dreadful effects on the lives of innocent people. Clearly anyone who can be proved to have committed crimes should be dealt with by the judicial system.

However Operation Yewtree seems to be acting as a fog enveloping anyone it touches in the same allegations as those made against Sir Jimmy Savile. As he is now deceased, these will never be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court, but the various investigations into his alleged behaviour over many years suggest most strongly that he was guilty.

The accusations against him are repellent and disgusting, amounting in many of the cases to evil abuse of power over some of the weakest in society. Such offences should be condemned.

But “Yewtree” is not just an investigation into the Savile offences. There are three strands to the enquiry. The first is directly related to Savile. The second covers “Savile and others”. These are entirely properly seen as part of the Savile investigations – because they are.

The third strand is the concerning one, I think.

This is described as covering “complaints against other people unconnected to the Savile investigations, made by people who came forward after widespread coverage of the scandal.”

The Daily Mail today headlines its online piece with the statement that Mr Harris has been “outed” as a “historic sex abuse suspect quizzed by Jimmy Savile detectives”. That is factually true. The detectives who have spoken to him are part of Operation Yewtree – the Savile investigation.

But as he is part of the third strand of enquiries, it seems first of all that Mr Harris is not implicated in any of Savile’s actions and secondly, in the absence of any detail about the allegations, there is not the slightest indication that Mr Harris’s alleged offence or offences are of the same nature as those of the deceased DJ.

But, I suspect, from now on people will think ill of Mr Harris in a similar way to that of Savile. Should he, or anyone else, be guilty of similar offences to those committed by Savile, then let the law take its course.

But if he is the victim of a malicious allegation, for example, or the allegation of some seemingly trivial offence which might not even have been viewed as such at the time it is alleged to have occurred, then surely something in the way these matters are being investigated, publicised and reported is wrong. (I do not mean to suggest by the way, that just because some things might have been seen as “acceptable” some years ago, they could not have amounted to a crime. However, even in such areas as these, there is a vast difference in scale between the various offences which can fall under the heading of “sexual abuse”. An accusation, for example, of one drunken grope of an adult many years ago is nowhere near the same level as repeated allegations of violent abuse of the under-age and vulnerable. [Equally, I am not saying that the “drunken grope” is not a criminal offence or that the victim of it might not have suffered as a result, but if, as I have read some commentators say, all sexual abuse is equally bad, then that simply downgrades the seriousness of the most heinous crimes.])

And tucked away at the end of the Daily Mail piece is a section which is chilling, I think, when it comes to viewing how the police, prosecuting authorities and media deal with matters like this where the reputations of innocent people are at stake.

It says:-

Detectives believe there will be insufficient evidence to prosecute the vast majority of the 11 suspects questioned under Operation Yewtree, a national probe prompted by allegations that emerged against Savile

Details of the small number of Yewtree prosecutions emerged a day after a former BBC producer was released without charge after being arrested over an alleged sex assault in 1965.

Wilfred De’ath, 75, who spent four months on bail before being cleared, accused police of being ‘over-zealous’ because they had failed ‘lamentably’ to stop Savile’s reign of terror while he was still alive.

Before a suspect is arrested, surely there requires to be some evidence against them? I will not speak about the English situation, as the rules there are different, but In Scotland the law makes clear that an arrest comes at a point where there is reasonable cause to believe that the accused has committed an offence – that involves there being some form of evidence!

It is not a case, at least formally, that a suspect can be arrested and questioned in the hope that they confess, although a confession always makes a prosecution easier. That is why, in Scotland anyway, we have detention – a period prior to arrest when the suspect can be questioned, effectively as part of the information gathering process.

I remember some years ago Harry Redknapp, the football manager, being arrested in connection with allegations of football corruption. He told the press on leaving the police station that this was routine and that the police could not speak to you without arresting you! Needless to say, Mr Redknapp’s grasp of football is infinitely better than his grasp of the law.

So what happens to Mr Harris and the other “strand three” Yewtree suspects?

What if, in several months, the Crown Prosecution Service announces that there will be no proceedings “due to an insufficiency of evidence”? In the eyes of the law the accused would remain as innocent as they are today, and as they remain, in the eyes of the law, until pronounced guilty by a jury.

In the eyes of many of the public will there not be the thought process as follows regarding any of the accused against whom no proceedings are taken?

  • That man was accused of the same crimes as Jimmy Savile (even if there was no similarity at all)
  • That man was arrested by the police
  • That man has got off because there was not enough evidence
  • That means that there was evidence so he has got off through some loophole
  • That man is clearly guilty and has got away with it.

There is something to be said for, on occasion, the police, CPS, or in Scotland Crown Office, making clear that, in some cases, there is not going to be a prosecution simply because there is no case at all, and the inquiry in fact shows that the person is innocent.

It is a very narrow tightrope to cross however, as stating that the accused is innocent impliedly impugns the accuser. In a country where the publicity suggests, even if the facts do not always agree, that many sex offenders “get away with it” because of a reluctance to report crimes, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to make such a statement, and even more so if, at a later date, convincing evidence of another alleged offence did appear.

I do not have an easy answer to the above problems.

It does strike me, as I commented before, that the press ought to be explaining why it chose to publicise some names and not others – it also strikes me that any of the accused who are innocent have been damaged beyond repair already by the coverage. It also strikes me that the police ought to be explaining why the “third strand” enquiries have been so closely linked to the Savile offences, even where the only connection is that coverage of his crimes prompted the accuser to come forward.

It is all very, very sad.

Posted by Paul McConville

Advertisements

82 Comments

Filed under Criminal Law, Press, The Sun

82 responses to “Operation Yewtree – The Sun’s “Exclusive” News re Latest Arrest – Which Media Knew In March

  1. gerry31

    Great read Paul. I was taken by a comment from prosecution services in England in a recent case where it was reported that they couldn’t decide over a period of a year if sufficient evidence existed to prosecute, before deciding to charge the suspect with 19 offences. I’m no expert but there seems to be significant contradiction there.

    There also has to be concern the possibility of ‘open season’ being declared for further accusations being made against suspects. I can’t help feeling that the police are using press to this end.

    I’m probably just being my usual cynical self right enough.

  2. Raymilland

    Good morning Paul

    I would refer to operation Gumtree over at Ibrox.

    Could you provide your opinion of the comment below; in particular to the issue of indemnity insurance?

    ==========================================================
    Any person attending a game at Ibrox should be protected by indemnity insurance in case of personal injury caused through any negligence of the company owning the stadium.

    I would imagine that in order for the above insurance certificate to be valid; details of the holding company would be essential to authenticate the indemnity policy.

    If Green cannot satisfy the appropriate authority (Glasgow City Council) of the validity of certification; the stadium would be closed to the public (and staff) until such time as the matter is resolved.

    If Green and Whyte fail to settle their differences; TRFC may well end up going to the dogs.

    I would be grateful if that Paul McConville could perhaps settle this matter in regard to the above indemnity insurance?
    ===========================================================

    • @Raymilland, Would it matter who owned the company who held the insurance certificate?
      I have no idea, who holds the certificate, The club, The company who holds the club, or the company who holds the company who holds the club.
      The validity of the insurance should be verified by the SFA, Insurance companies are notorious for get out clauses, should an “i” be missing a dot. But I think that if the company who operated the club and stadium, had a policy, then who actually owned the company would not be an issue.
      Considering that Ibrokes has the worst safety record of any stadium in Britain, it is certainly an issue with which the SFA should demand total clarity with regard to potential outcomes should a claim be made.
      I believe there is also a legal requirement to exhibit a copy of the policy on the premises.

      • Raymilland

        @barca

        The question is all about ownership of Ibrox. Do TRFC have permission from the rightful owner to use the property to run their business?

        You cannot insure a stolen car.

        If Craig Whyte is the rightful owner; did Green have his consent to use the assets to run TRFC?

        Who is responsible for the maintenance of the assets? There are many implications of Health & Safety statute in regard to liability of personal injury arising from any hazard related to the structure and layout of business premises.

        I would imagine that any doubt over ownership of the above assets would negate the validity of any indemnity insurance certificate.

        Could Paul McConville kindly clarify the above?

  3. Monti

    Morning Paul, I have felt for many years that the media in Britain have far too much rope to play with within our Society. I believe the naming of Individuals in the public arena should only happen once that individual has been charged with any offence & not at all if the person has actually been cleared of any wrong doing. It’s a difficult one I agree, but an individual should not be broken by the media, before a court has sat down & dealt with the case.

  4. I see what you are saying Paul, regarding innocents, possibly being tarred with a guilty brush. I think it important to remember that the people involved have benefitted, and courted “good publicity” and in some cases, probably manipulated it to an extent to further their careers.
    Publicity is an occupational hazard or blessing of their industry. As such, they must be aware of its power, and the adverse affects it can also bring. I understand that the police are not going to give anybody the all clear. But that is not their job! Neither is it for them to decide guilt!
    I realise that court time is valueable, and should not be wasted. If the prosecution feels that it will be, they will not proceed. However, this does not remove the “whiff” of guilt. A trial to establish innocense is clearly not an option.
    Possibly a statement from the prosecution is the way forward. and instead of the implication that it was lack of evidence that derailed a prosecution. Perhaps simply stating that there is “No reason” why the accused should stand trial, and as such, no stain on his/her character.

  5. Presumably we’re gong to see a fair bit of the Sun and its like testing the waters post-Leveson to see how ‘innocent’ a person has to be before they can put you on the front-page for your alleged crimes, and how far they can go with what they write before any allegations come to court, if indeed they do.

  6. Paul,
    From the start of the scandal I’ve been aware of much commentary across the media about what any alleged perpetrators were ‘doing’ at the time (employment) and which organisations they were representing. This seems key.
    Even though activities as alleged may have been done in a personal capacity by the individuals involved, there are present day repercussions for the organisations that they worked for at the time – I’m thinking of the NHS or the BBC here – particularly if alleged events took place on premises.
    Even if no criminal case stands up against the individuals, some form of civil case, against either/both the individual and the organisation(s), might come from it.

  7. widowtwankie

    Operation Salem?

  8. was there not a case going on about an ex rangers player getting into some trouble for helping young children although no charges were brought but
    it still tarnished him I believe and that was in scotland

  9. Monti

    Off topic: Could fellow commentators confirm for me please, Rangers (IL) did NOT supply players for for the War effort during WWI & WWII? Is this correct? They apparently played full strength sides during war years as Celtic & other teams players headed for action in foreign lands, how many titles did they ‘win’ during the war years & surely these titles should be declared tainted & null & void? If this did happen & I’m not saying it did, i find this astonishing! 5 stars? Really??

    • I think you will find a long line of players who have served her majestys forces , the last was actually a ex manager jock Wallace , and the titles won by the mighty Rangers during the second world war don’t actually count ! So nice try but you’ve hit the post again ! But for your information your own mobs titles won during the first world war one do count ! Tainted or what ???

      • Monti

        Nice try but you put it over the bar sebo style Carson, that wasn’t my point, my point was did Rangers (IL) supply players for the war effort on wars 1 & 2? You are correct regarding WWII as the league was suspended during these war years, however did Rangers (IL) supply players for the war effort for WWI? & Celtic had many players lost to the club through War service, how can Celtic’s war years titles be tainted if they supplied players for the war effort? Surely the titles would only be tainted if we DIDN’T supply players while other teams did? Now answer the question Carson. In my book I’ve just put one in your top corner Larsson style…..

  10. Geddy Lee

    Could it just be as base as the Media being reluctant to name Rolf earlier due to his links to the Royal Family?

    These links must have also aided Saville when it came to investigating allegations against him.

    Saville openly boasted to one Police Force, that another, was actively protecting him, and burying investigations as they surfaced!!!!!!!!!!!

    Why on earth are the media not doing a proper investigation of these claims?

    Surely the Home Sec in England should be calling for an immediate inquiry into police collusion?

  11. Geddy Lee

    Monti,
    I believe the old rangers did not include “the war years” titles in their haul.

    I assume for that very reason. I find it hard to believe however that not one of them fought for their country.

    • Long line of players served , but the titles were not counted due to the war , unlike the tainted titles sellick count for the first world war , tainted or what?

    • Monti

      I didn’t suggest none of them didn’t Geddy, just wanted an answer,if they indeed did supply players. Can’t put my finger on it the now, but I have read in the past about Rangers(IL) fielding full strength teams during the war years while other clubs including Celtic were effectively outing out amateur sides. This would to me make any titles won by Rangers (IL) indeed, TAINTED! I have merely asked if this WAS the case!

  12. Montit , what about your tainted titles during the first world war ? You started the debate , now please answer the question !

    • JimBhoy

      @Monti/Carson Only on this site could we go from newspaper conspiracies to WW1/2 rangers and celtic soldiers…

      With all due respect to you both, the whole Army debate over the past few weeks (for me) has been something we could have avoided, I do not understand it from selling poppies to the falklands… I do not think these discussions have been relevant to most of Paul’s posts..
      — My Dad served in the army we have lost family members in wars, I support any soldier who fights for his country. “Politicians start wars for honest men to die”… I wrote that many months ago…

      Could we leave the army piece out until Paul or a poster puts out a relevant feed… Feel free to put out that feed and then the debate will have some relevance..

      • Monti

        Jimbhoy I’ve got my tongue firmly in my cheek on this one, come on now relax, someone pointed this out to me regarding the supply of players or lack of by Rangers in the Wars. I just wanted an answer from Carson, Chill Winston………

      • Budweiser

        Jim. – Well said.

  13. O.M.

    It is , of course, ironic that if the prosecuting authorities do think that there is sufficient evidence to go to court, and the Judge/jury decide that this evidence does not convince them, then the individual is officially “Not Guilty”, and leaves the dock “without a stain on their character”
    (Lets not muddy the waters with the “bastard verdict” !)

    • You’ll also find that Rangers legends torry gillick , Sammy cox and Willie Thornton served his majestys forces with Mr Thornton winning the military medal for courage under fire , please , please montit do your research before trying to slag off the mighty Rangers , now …about these tainted titles ?

      • Monti

        No intention of slagging off your old club Carson, I asked a question & you answered it. My gut feeling is to go and check myself tho….’top o the morning to you sir.

  14. Geddy Lee

    Simply hysterical .

    A Sevcovian complaining about people bringing a football team into a story about child abuse.

    I mean, just what kind of people would do that?

    Carson, that really is taking Sevcovian hypocrisy to new, never before seen levels.

  15. JimBhoy

    I think this Beeb/Saville thing will rumble on for years to come and cost the taxpayer and absolute fortune… What intrigues me is where do they get the evidence? Is it just folk now complaining that they were victims or are there old files that the feds closed out for whatever reason.. If the prior there will probably be a ton of false claims where folk think they can make a quick buck, sorry to sound cynical but it will happen. If the latter then maybe the police forces in question need a bit of an investigation, them knowing about some incident and doing nothing should be treated as severely as the perpetrators…

  16. Montit , you’ll find a long line as i’ve said , jock Buchanan winning the
    Distinguished conduct medal , being one , now about those tainted titles claimed by ra selick during the first great war ?

  17. Montit , could you take your tongue out of your cheek and justify the TAINTED titles claimed by ra sellick during the great war , TAINTED or what ?

  18. Geddy Lee

    Carson, Thornton’s Military medal is a good one, but can’t trump Celtic’s James Stokes, who won the Victoria Cross for his efforts. Fascinating subject. Did you know for example that the Sunday Mail even accused some rangers players of being “Draft Dodgers” due to the propensity of the team that managed to suddenly score “Jobs” in the ship yards, thus avoiding any service?

    One rangers player even sued the paper, but I am unaware of the outcome of the case. Anyone help?

    After the war, the “Victory Cup” was put up for grabs. Celtic managed to win the competion, but rangers “declined” to take part. One has to wonder why.

    • James stokes is a HEROE end of story , a young man who should be adored and saluted by his clubs support and I for one salute him , along with any player who served their country , and his clubs support should maybe remember that on armistice day instead of prasing cowards .

  19. Monti , tainted titles during the great war ? Tainted or not ? In your own time ….. top of the morning to you sir .

  20. Just because a poster acknowledges that they are going ‘off topic’ doesn’t make it ok. To then doggedly pursue it is ill-mannered by all involved and shows a lack of restraint.

    • JimBhoy

      @Horse3 Straight from the Horse’s mouth, Carson/Monti come on boys get back on track.. Jeez that was almost 2 Horsey jokes there, I’ll get my (horse-hair) coat.. 😉

  21. JimBhoy

    Didn’t Paul Merton make some serious allegations about Jimmy Saville many years ago, anyone remember that?

    • Jerry Sadowitz had something to say about 30 years ago. It was on You Tube.

      • JimBhoy

        @Horse3 whatever happened to Jerry what a talented yet somewhat off the wall character.. A man I’d love to go for a beer with albeit knowing that at the end of the night we’d be barred, have to fight our way out and/or get locked up.. 🙂

        • Saw his lunchtime close-hand magic show at Edinburgh Fringe last year. Extremely foul language and miles away away from PC. Also probably the funniest show I’ve seen in years. The magic was impressive too. Certainly a strange character.

    • Don’t know about that , but the comments from cardinal Napier , bishop of Durban , seem to have gone unpunished by the new chap ! And wasn’t jimmy a papal knight ?

    • Paul Merton has repeatedly made it clear that the supposed HIGNFY transcript of him ripping into Sir Jimmy on the show is an invention. It never happened.

  22. Geddy Lee

    carson, clearly you ,like so many of your ilk, are in desperate need of educating, especially when it comes to the relationship your old club had with the Military. (Your new club have been black-balled by the modern Forces).

    I shall compile a post on the subject over the next few days, as clearly, there is so much you are ignorant of.

    Your not the only one of course, the true history of our country, especially in relation to the Military is not widely discussed, and no wonder when you see the reality.

    Now can we get back to the subject in hand, and keep your powder dry on this matter until next week?

    • I bow to your supetior intellect , are you the blessed Maggie in disguise ?

    • JimBhoy

      @Geddy nice one mate I will read your post for sure…. I suppose the good thing about a blog drifting off course is that it can stem a wider ongoing debate in future posts and can educate (especially me)… Thanks.. 😉

  23. Brian J

    Perhaps the police corruption enquiry team should be looking at their colleagues on Operation Yewtree! Seems to me that it is highly unlikely that the individuals identified in public to date have volunteered that information willingly to the press themselves. The only other players in the game at this stage is the police. If the police are formally naming the individuals to the press then it seems to me to be an abuse of power and process. If the press are being told unofficially then it smacks of corruption.
    The former would suggest a media strategy designed to show the public that the police are treating all allegations seriously and are making progress regardless of e effect on the alleged perpetrator. Such a strategy would require top brass approval. Whilst not necessarily illegal it may fall foul of ECHR as being neither a reasonable nor a proportionate response in the circumstances.
    The latter would be a criminal matter involving corrupt payments for privileged e information.

  24. Dave S.

    And another interesting thread gets taken over by the usual suspects. Thanks guys.

    • Monti

      Light hearted fun on my part, if you don’t like my post, skip to the next one for heavens sake. P.C. Brigade are out.

      • Dave S.

        Because it’s not the next post, it’s the next post and the next one and the next one and the real thread gets drowned. It was the same with the Worthington one, by the time I got to it the conversation had disappeared between the waves.

  25. Should savile be stripped of his papal knighthood and cardinal Napier be sacked for his views ? Just asking like .

    • JimBhoy

      @Carson I believe Savile was stripped of his papal knighthood on the other qn no idea what that refers to or has to do with the post..

  26. Geddy Lee

    Brian, while they are at it, they can look into the allegations that senior Policemen in North Yorkshire, met regularly at Saville’s flat. N orth Yorkshire police are the force accused of burying allegations made against Saville.

    Frankly shameful that no media hack has had the backbone to properly investigate this appalling scandal.

    • JimBhoy

      @Geddy my conspiracy theory but this enquiry into the perpetrators of sexual crime may not just be down to beeb employees/entertainers. As you say jimmy had influences far and wide and we suspect that maybe there has been some less than adequate police work, maybe there is a reason for that…. Hopefully all the guilty parties will have their fate sealed.

  27. Geddy Lee

    carson, I feel a Forum wide call for your removal from this site if you can’t get yourself out of the gutter.

    Grow up! or slither off back to the Bear’s Den.

    There’s nothing for you here.

    • I’M ONLY POINTING OUT FACTS .

      • Monti

        Carson why do you have to bring Religion & attack the Catholic church on here? I really don’t see anything you bring to our table, other than sectarianism & Bigotry? Just go away please, you are a bigot & a damaged individual. Do what I did, apologise & behave yourself. I was having a wee bit of Craig with the players during the war thing & it was in a jocular perspective Carson, your response- attack Catholics….not needed, outdated & you need to grow up son!

  28. Monti , about those tainted titles ? Surely they should be handed back out of decency ? And saville should be stripped of his papal knighthood and cardinal Napier sacked ? Just asking like .

  29. Rich753

    I suspect there is a counter argument to Paul’s post above , and Saville provides a fine example.

    It seems that there were complaints against Saville from across the country but never enough in any one place for the police to connect them up. Had just one of those accusations found it’s way into the popular press it’s a reasonable to think that there would have been a tidal wave of “yeah, he did that to me too” allegations and perhaps he could have been stopped in his tracks or prosecuted many years ago, when he would have had the opportunity to defend himself against these accusations.

    The same ‘preventative’ logic hardly applies to an 83-year old man plainly, but it seems to me that the police in this case are using publicity as a device to try to recruit further witnesses, which feels legitimate to me.

  30. Gortch

    Is there any facet of British society that isn’t a wretched disgrace? And the higher up the slimey social ladder you go, the more disturbing it gets. Society is upside down. The world is upside down. Black is white. Good is evil. Ignorance, absolutely, a strength.

  31. Great post Paul – while we don’t of course now the details, i think your comments need to be said. I used to know his daughter and have friends who now him and his family, and have heard nothing but good things about him. Of course, this could mean nothing, but i just hope Yewtree is not coming under undue pressure to feed the media ‘names’ in part to justify the size and expense of the operation.

    • Kenny, it would appear to me, that the “news” being published now, is not the result of fine journalistic skills or their ability to uncover a “scoop”. If it is they have all “scooped” it at the same time, and a long way behind it being in the public domain.
      As always with these low life’s, it is agenda driven, and being fed to them.
      Who is doing the feeding is always the hard part to uncover. And very seldom is.

  32. great post paul, with one significant exception

    . . . max clifford !

    ironic is it not?

  33. Geddy lee , you talk about Jim’s links to the royal family ? What meeting them at organised events ? ….WHAT about his papal knighthood ?

  34. Monti

    I wonder how many of these Newspaper editors or owners would like the public scrutiny on their own families privacy, how would they like it if it became public knowledge where their wives or husbands done their shopping, what schools their kids went to ( not in the religious sense Carson) in a general sense? These editors care for nothing other than sales figures, peoples feelings or safety do not come into the equation, they enjoy scandal no matter the effect on the individual. The media especially the written media, need to be controlled better by legislation, if they fail to protect the public & it’s individuals from lies & FALSE perception, they should be banned & circulation of the paper removed. People should not be guilty in the eyes of the public until a judge has proved or disproved the charge.

    • Monti , I can’t fu#$ing believe it !!! I agree with you !!! I’m gonna give you a tu ! ……fancy a pint MATE ?

      • Fra

        @Carson…I knew I could get you into a wee love fest. Doesn’t that feel much better. Give yourself a well deserved pat on the back.

        On topic, why are there three strands when the radio said today that Rolf Harris accusations aren’t connected to Saville. Therefore could he by association ie Yewtree be tarred with the stench from Saville. If he turns out to be innocent, for 82 years his cultivating of his image will all be for nothing.

        Paul covers it all very well. I think it’s all got rather murky unnecessarily.

  35. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/apr/19/rolf-harris-sun

    “Following his arrest, Harris – who turned 83 two days later – was named on social media sites. Certain blogs subsequently named him too. But newspapers did not.

    Why? It would appear that several national titles (though not The Guardian) received letters from Harris’s lawyers, Harbottle & Lewis, warning them against identifying their client.

    Earlier this week, the law firm sent a letter to a relatively obscure website, demanding that it take down two stories that named Harris. The solicitor argued that it defamed Harris.

    But there is no law against identifying a person who has been formally arrested. Its argument is therefore baffling.”

  36. Pensionerbhoy

    Paul

    I am getting to the blog very late so will simply say this is a great read. Like you, I am sorely saddened by the way our CJS, which is meant to implement justice for all, can do so much harm with its limited methodology. As an active participant, I ached at the destruction of good, innocent reputations, but also, like you, I have no answers to the dilemma of protecting suspects while seeking real justice for victims.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s