Rolf Harris - Misandric Gynocentric UK

By MRA-UK: In June 2014 Rolf Harris was found guilty of 12 counts of indecently assaulting four girls between 1969 and 1983. Harris denied all 12 charges on which he was found guilty. They were,

• Count one: A woman said Harris touched her inappropriately when she was just seven or eight while he was signing autographs in 1969.
• Count two: Harris was accused of fondling a teenager’s bottom at a charity event in Cambridge in 1975.
• Counts three to nine: A childhood friend of Mr Harris’ daughter, Bindi, said he repeatedly indecently assaulted her from the age of 13, starting in 1978, including once when his daughter was asleep in the same room.
• Counts 10 to 12: Australian woman Tonya Lee, who waived her right to anonymity, said Harris touched her inappropriately one day while she was on a theatre group trip to the UK at the age of 15.

In Count One the woman claimed Harris touched her intimately when she was seven or eight after she queued to get his autograph at a community centre near Portsmouth in 1969. But no confirmation could be found that Harris had even been there, despite searches of local newspaper archives, council records and letter drops appealing for witnesses. This included looking at copies of the Portsmouth News between January 1967 and May 1974. This fact was presented to the court.

In Count Two the complainant, then aged 14, claimed that Harris fondled her bottom outside a Celebrity It’s a Knock Out event in Cambridge. Her testimony was that, “To start, it was a very nervous but a good feeling. However his hand then moved and his hand went up and down my back and his hand went over my bottom and it was very firm.” She said Harris was acting up for a crowd by barking at a dog before he grabbed her.
Again no evidence of any kind was found to put Harris in Cambridge in the year of 1975, the date suggested by the complainant, despite searches of newspaper archives. Admittedly the complainant had not been entirely sure of the date, but she did say she was about 13 or 14 at the time. However, the It’s a Knock Out event had actually taken place in 1978 when the victim would have been 16 or 17, not 13 or 14 as she claimed. She also placed the event wrongly (in Parker’s Piece rather than Jesus Green).
In Counts 10-12 Tonya Lee, then 15, claimed that Harris asked her to sit on his lap before moving his hand up her leg and thigh. “He was moving back and forth rubbing against me,” she said. “It was very subtle, it wasn’t big movements.” She told the jury  that Harris had then patted her on the thigh and moved his hand upwards. She said she had “started to panic” and rushed to the toilet. When she came out, she said, Harris was waiting for her and gave her “a big bear hug” before putting his hand down her top and then down her skirt. Harris denied ever meeting Ms Lee.
Lee claimed in her evidence that the sexual assault caused her to lose six kilos in weight during the six week theatre tour. It was proven in court that the alleged incident could only have taken place in the final week of the tour, rendering this claim incredible. It was revealed that Lee was in debt and had sold her story for £33,000 to an Australian TV station and a magazine prior to the trial.
So far all the charges have involved claims of one-off incidents of inappropriate touching. Counts 3-9 were potentially more serious, involving alleged grooming and actual sexual congress with a minor. The complainant was a childhood friend of Harris’s daughter, Bindi. The burden of the complainant’s testimony was as follows,

Harris took his daughter’s friend with them on a holiday to Canada, Hawaii and Australia in 1978 when she was 13. As she came out of the shower wearing only a towel, she said that Harris put her hands over her and touched her intimately. She claimed that two days later Harris touched her again as she emerged from the sea, just feet from his sunbathing wife and daughter. He wrapped a towel round her and fondled her crotch, she said. She claimed that similar incidents happened throughout the holiday. On one occasion two years later, when she was 15, she said that Harris performed a sex act on her in Bindi’s bedroom while his daughter slept in a single bed beside them. During another sleepover, he was said to have sexually abused her in Bindi’s bedroom after Bindi had left the room. She claimed the abuse continued throughout her teenage years. On one occasion, when she was 19, she said that Harris sexually assaulted her in his swimming pool at his home in Bray, Berkshire. From this point, she started to go along with his demands. He went on to take advantage of her at his home, her family home, in his Mercedes while driving along the M4 and in his dressing room just before he was due to perform in Cinderella at Wimbledon Theatre in 1994. In 1987, when aged 22, she performed a sex act on Harris in his red Mercedes car on the M4. She said she was drunk at the time.

Harris admitted having a relationship with the woman, but said it began after she turned 18.
There are a number of inconsistencies in her story. Most important is the evidence of Harris’s daughter, Bindi. One issue concerned the allegation that, on the holiday in 1978, the complainant was “assaulted as she came out of the shower in her hotel bedroom.”  How would Harris have gained access to her hotel bedroom while she was in the shower? Bindi testified that she shared the hotel room with her and that the only way somebody could gain access to the room was if they were let in.
In further testimony from Bindi about the holiday she told the court that her father paid the two girls little attention, that the girls were “stuck together like glue” during the holiday and that she saw no change in her friend’s behaviour. Bindi was asked if Harris ever wrapped a towel around the victim. She said, “no, that would be weird, my dad wouldn’t do that anyway”.
However, Harris admitted having an affair with the girl when she turned 18. It was not only Harris who claimed that his affair with Bindi’s friend started only when she was an adult. Bindi also testified that her friend had herself told her that the relationship started when she was aged 18 or 19, not 13 as she claimed in her evidence to the court.
Harris and the complainant had a consensual sexual relationship from when she was 18 or 19 in 1983 until it was ended in 1994 when she was 29. This is not disputed. They therefore had an adult, consensual sexual relationship for 10 or 11 years. I find it hard to understand how it is possible to reconcile having an adult, consensual relationship with someone for 10 or 11 years with a claim that this same person now requires imprisonment for abuse committed prior to that time. It is not disputed that the affair ended acrimoniously. It is not disputed that the alleged victim had asked Harris for $45,000 although she disputes it was an attempt at blackmail as Harris claimed.
The case against Harris may be summarised as follows. As far as I can see from the newspaper reports there was no independent corroborating witness evidence for any of the assault claims. All the claims depend entirely on the word of the complainants. For the most serious case, that of Bindi’s friend, there is independent witness evidence from Bindi that there was no opportunity for the abuse claimed while on holiday in 1978. For charges 1 and 2, there is no evidence that Harris was in the cities in question at the time of the allegations. For charges 10-12 there was inconsistency in the accuser’s evidence, she was known to be in debt and had accepted payment for her story before the trial.
Rolf Harris was found guilt on all 12 charges. He was sentenced to prison for  five years and nine months. There were 150 complaints that the sentence was too lenient.
But imprisonment is only one part of the punishment. The public demands that Rolf Harris be absolutely destroyed. All his achievements will be void, his reputation turned to dross. It is obligatory in our times that his name be synonymous with utter evil, with no hope of redemption. His punishment will continue when he is released from prison (if he survives) in the form of being a social pariah with no reprieve being possible. He has been stripped of his Bafta fellowship. He has been stripped of his CBE. He has been stripped of his  honorary degree from the University of East London. Galleries are reputed to have destroyed his art (or, at least, have removed it from public view). His portrait of the Queen has been quietly disappeared.
Harris’s £11 million pound fortune is expected to be exhausted on legal costs as well as compensation claims. There have been no shortage of other complainants coming forward. If and when he is released from prison he will be broke, in his late 80s, and utterly vilified. He will go to the grave knowing that he will be regarded as a monster after death and for as long as his name is remembered. Perhaps the public would like to see him face some lions in a modern Colosseum by way of a finale?
I draw the reader’s attention to the contrast between the treatment of Harris and the following cases.
In years up to 2012, 44 year old ex-teaching assistant Emma Webb had sex with a string of underage schoolboys in Wokingham. The latest offenses against two boys took place in her own home, in her car and at the boys’ school. She assaulted boys of 15 and 16 with no previous sexual experience. At her trial in 2014 the court was told these events were “a disgraceful abuse of her power”.
The court heard that Webb texted the boys, telling them to leave lessons, and would lead them to a deserted maths classroom at the Wokingham school where she worked. There she performed oral sex on them. On one occasion she lured the 16-year-old around to her house for a sex session after messaging him via Facebook, telling him her husband was out. In another instance she texted the boy telling him to excuse himself from class, before dragging him into an empty maths room and asking: “Are you going to fuck me or not?” One day she offered to give him a lift home but she pulled her Jeep into a deserted car park and told him “before I go, I just want to do something” and unbuttoned his trousers and performed oral sex on him. After she had finished she performed a sex act on herself, groaning loudly.
Webb asked the 15 year old boy to keep the Bluetooth function on his phone activated so she could send him pictures of herself in her underwear playing with sex toys. The pair would kiss on the stairs at school and then have sex. In another instance, she drove the youngster to a secluded area of woodland, where they had sex on the back seat of her car. Webb told the boy it did not matter about using a condom because she was unable to have children.
The judge was told that the boy had been reluctant to report the affair to the police because Webb had threatened him with her husband, who was a black belt in karate. He feared a reprisal attack.
Her punishment?
Webb escaped jail being given only a suspended sentence and was ordered to undergo two years of supervision by the probation service and to pay a £100 victim surcharge. Mr Recorder John Gallagher told her she was only avoiding prison because she had already been punished for previous offences.
That’s right. She avoided prison because she had previously been jailed for 32 months after admitting sexual assault of five other pupils at the same school.
Having let her off, the tough judge said, “this is your last chance, there can be no more of this.”
Not quite the same treatment meted out to Rolf Harris, was it?
Note that, in all newspaper reports of sexual assaults by women, rather than using words like “assault” or “abuse” words like “affair” or “sex romp” or “having a fling” are used. Here’s another recent case.
According to the newspapers, Charlotte Parker, 32 year old a teaching assistant, had a “torrid two-year affair” with a male pupil, starting when he was 14. According to the judge, though, the word “affair” did not cut it. He said,
“Let me make this abundantly clear, this is a case of gross child abuse. People who work as teaching assistants, whatever their gender, who take advantage of victims, of any gender, commit very serious offences indeed. It makes no difference that the victim was a boy. It makes no difference he may have thought he was in a relationship with you. The law is there to stop people taking advantage of children.”
Quite, well said, judge – but in 2014 he still gave her only a suspended sentence.
At the time of the offences (the newspapers used the word “affair”), Parker was a teacher at the Hyland’s Academy in Chelmsford, Essex, and the teenage boy was a student in her class. The abuse (the phrase used in the newspaper was “illicit dalliance”) reportedly started after the boy, who was 14 at the time, sent his teacher an innocent Christmas card. Soon after the boy turned 15, the pair embarked on a physical relationship. For two years, Parker managed to keep her abuse of the boy secret.
Explaining his decision to issue a suspended sentence, Judge Austin Stotan stated that although the boy was underage, he was a willing participant in the affair. Really? But, judge, are you not aware that the law says an underage person cannot give consent?
And here’s another.
In 2013, teacher Eppie Sprung Dawson, 27, was caught “half naked” having sex with her pupil Matthew Robinson, 17, by police in a lay-by. It’s been illegal since 2000 for a teacher to have sex with a pupil under 18, even if it’s consensual. The four-month sexual “affair” (that word again) ended Dawson’s marriage and career, but she was spared jail. She was put on the sex offenders register. Nevertheless she can apply to be a teacher again in two years time.
And another.
In 2013, 35 year old teacher Bernadette Smith had “an affair” (that word yet again) with her 16-year-old pupil, Gary Ralston after she confided in him about her marriage breakdown. Gary is described in the newspapers as “fresh faced”. The photos show someone you would unhesitatingly described as a child (I don’t think it’s right to reproduce them here). The pair started meeting in the local park (nothing shady there at all) and their relationship soon turned physical, although Smith insisted that ‘nothing sexual happened’ beyond kissing. And yet she spent the night with him in his bed in jeans and a bra after the “affair” was discovered. Smith looked surprised as the sheriff decided not to jail her and she left Stirling Sheriff Court with a broad grin across her face. Gary’s parents were not impressed. His father said, “It’s not right. She’s a sex offender, pure and simple”. They have reason to be even less impressed since she failed to sign-on as a sex offender at her local police station as she was required to do.
Is this lenience to women sex offenders because the victim is male? There may be an element of that, but it is certainly not the only factor. Women offending against girls are also treated leniently. Take the case of 27 year old Cumbrian teacher Hayley Southwell. She groomed a 15 year old girl pupil, including the use of a large number of “intimate and explicit” text messages and moving images. They ‘counted down the days’ until her 16th birthday after which the teacher admitted they had had a sexual relationship (it would seem in ignorance of such an act still being illegal at 16). The judge said the explicit texts and images were a significant aggravating feature. Nevertheless, he gave Southwell only a suspended sentence on the basis that “the relationship appeared to be a case of mutual affection”. Hmm, I think we can conclude there was some mutual affection between Rolf Harris and his daughter’s friend, given that their adult affair lasted 10 or 11 years. But what’s mitigation for the goose is not mitigation for the gander, clearly.
And here’s another involving a female victim, in this case no older than 12. Charlotte Holl, 25, was a female beauty pageant judge when she intensively groomed and ultimately sexually assaulted a young girl, plying her with cigarettes and alcohol. Holl sent 1,200 texts and social media messages to her victim  – who was under 13-years-old. But Holl was spared jail. She was given an 18-month jail sentence suspended for two years after she admitted four sexual assaults on the girl and being an adult who met a girl following grooming.
All these cases were recent and in the UK.
The complainants in the Harris case were described in the newspapers as “brave victims”  who had undergone “terrifying ordeals”. The victims of the above women were never described in such terms in the newspaper reports.
These few cases are certainly the tip of the iceberg as regards illegal sexual activities between teachers and pupils. For example, the number of female sex offenders in Wales increased from 78 in 2009 to 193 in 2012. Though still a tiny fraction of the number of convicted males, the rate at which women are being convicted of sex offences is increasing rapidly. It is probably fair to say that in the UK this phenomenon has yet to be properly acknowledged or reported but is presently beneath the surface. This article states that, “it’s thought that as many as 1,500 intimate relationships between teachers and pupils happen every year“. (This figure appears to relate to just the UK and presumably to offenders of both sexes. I don’t know the provenance of the figure).
In the USA the number of prosecutions of female teachers for sexual abuse of their pupils is now in the hundreds per year, and rising as the phenomenon has become recognised. In U.S. schools in 2014 almost 800 school employees were prosecuted for sexual assault, nearly a third of them women. The proportion of  identified women offenders is increasing steeply.
The above examples demonstrate that women’s offending commonly displays the following characteristics: persistent grooming which continues for years, offences against multiple victims, offences against pre-pubescent victims (hence physically as well as legally children), and threats in the event of disclosure. The words used by judges in their summing-up at the trials have included statements such as, “a disgraceful abuse of power“, “a case of gross child abuse“, and “very serious offences indeed“.
And yet the women whose offences were described in these terms still receive only suspended sentences. Why?
Don’t mistake my intent here. I am not one of the flog ’em and hang ’em brigade. I have no particular opinion regarding what the appropriate punishment should be. My question relates only to the stark contrast between the treatment of these women and the treatment of Rolf Harris for offences which were no worse, even if you believe every word of his accusers.
The reason, of course, is that the judiciary reflects societal prejudice.
The prejudice of society could not be clearer. There is a double prejudice in these cases, one in respect of the offender and one in respect of the victim. If a man and a woman commit exactly the same sexual offence it is perceived by most people as being far more heinous in the case of a male perpetrator. As regards victims, if a boy and a girl are subject to the same sexual abuse, it is perceived by most people as being far less serious in the case of the male victim.
Most people simply do not believe that the sexual exploitation of boys is damaging. There have been cases (though only a few) when women offending sexually against boys have been sentenced to prison. But when this happens, the public signal their displeasure. Consider the case of Madeleine Martin, the 39-year-old RE teacher and mother of two, who was jailed for 32 months and placed on the sex offenders’ register for sleeping with a 15-year-old male pupil. Barbara Ellen was cross. She wrote in the Guardian, “do we seriously think that a female teacher sleeping with a male pupil is on a par with a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil? I don’t. And neither, I’d wager, would most 15-year-old boys….If anything, one would have thought they might be jealous. The internet is awash with sites dealing with “older woman teacher-pupil” fantasies. And there lies the rub – should the law be treating male and female pupil victims equally when male and female teenagers are so different?”
Barbara Ellen can rest assured that, in general, the judiciary reflects her (overtly sexist) position, as do most of society. It is interesting to see a call for differing concern for victims based on their sex stated so openly, though it merely reflects the de facto position. It is amusing to see this justified on the basis that males and females are different, the very fact which is so strenuously denied by feminists in other contexts and which forms a corner-stone of their ideology. And as for there being “internet sites dealing with older woman teacher-pupil fantasies”, if this is a valid basis for legitimising activities then God help us. We will be awash with rape and perversion and 50 shades of sexual violence.
Barbara Ellen’s position, simply put, is that “he enjoyed it and he should be grateful for the attention”. Think of these same sentiments expressed in the context of a man’s sexual exploitation of a girl. Barbara Ellen’s views are obnoxious. In her world view only females are precious and vulnerable. Males are neither. It never crosses her mind that a teenage boy’s facade of sexual bravado has been imposed upon him by her. Yes, by her and her kind. Because the assumption of braggadocio is the role which boys have been allotted. It is no coincidence that this psychological trap then gives spurious justification to female preference. That the outcomes for sexually exploited boys are no different from those for girls is something in which Barbara Ellen and her kind have no interest. However, I digress.
My main concern here has been the different treatment of male and female sex offenders, by both the public and the courts.
The public are deeply sexist, men and women both. This is why they can demand that Rolf Harris be thrown into the nethermost pit of hell, whilst simultaneously regarding women who commit very similar offences, or worse, as merely “having an illicit fling”. This anti-male sexism has been inflamed to neurotic proportions by feminism. Masculinity is intrinsically toxic. Male sexuality is essentially nasty. Any expression of male sexuality, however mild, will be seen as threatening and abusive. Women’s sexuality, on the other hand, is benign – even when they do exactly the same thing.
The ambient mythology of women’s perpetually caring and compassionate nature protects them from being seen as sexually predatory. The myth trumps reality at every turn. Reality is perceived through the filter of society’s preconceptions. This is what sexism is. Everything a man does is exploitative, predatory, damaging, dangerous and an expression of his male power. Nothing a woman does can possibly be any of these things, even when it is.
A man touching a woman’s bottom is a monstrous predator. But if a woman were to fondle my behind in a public place (and, yes, it’s happened, more than once) it is not something that I could even complain about without being mocked. Not that I have the slightest wish to. I’m not playing the victim here. I have not been socialised to regard myself as so precious that I need the fainting couch over such trivia. But the feminist victimhood mentality is precisely such pretension. It is convenient for feminists to appear vulnerable, because their illusion of vulnerability is their strength, their power.
And this is what the vilification of the likes of Rolf Harris is really about: power. This, and the ocean of similar propaganda in which we swim, is to remind us constantly that all men are niggers and we need to remember our place.

Source