ROLF HARRIS AND ROTHERHAM: OFFSETTING INTERRACIAL CHILD RAPE WITH BORDERLINE CELEB DEGENERACY

by Colin Liddell

In the wake of the (largely) Muslim & Pakistani Grooming Gang scandal in the UK, a number of Western celebrities with a vaguely creepy demeanour became targets for prosecution for various kinds of illegal sexual activity. One of these died recently at the grand old age of 93 -- Rolf Harris, someone I vaguely remember from TV when I was a kid. 

Harris was one of the targets of what was called Operation Yewtree. According to Wikipedia this was:

"a British police investigation into sexual abuse allegations...against the English media personality Jimmy Savile and others. The investigation, led by the Metropolitan Police Service, started in October 2012." 

But a spate of prosecutions of well-known celebrities doesn't just happen out of the blue. The question has to be asked: "What else was going on at the time?

It's hard to ignore how much Operation Yewtree dovetails with the breaking of the Rotherham Scandal that made the (largely) Pakistani grooming gangs a major issue in the UK. This scandal really broke on the 24th of September 2012 with a piece in the Times finally opening the can of worms after all sorts of backdoor moves to keep the scandal in the dark.

But within days of British people hearing that Pakistan gangs had been grooming and raping a large number of their kids, and that the police and politicians had been covering it up, we were suddenly presented with some high-profile White paedos.

Funny that!

This started with an ITV documentary, Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile, by a former police detective Mark Williams-Thomas. This was broadcast on 3rd October 2012, almost a year after Savile's death, but less than two weeks after the Rotherham Scandal broke. It's almost like they were keeping it on tap.

My impression at the time was that the British state was intent on "offsetting" the inevitably "racist" fallout of the Rotherham scandal with a few high-profile celebrity paedo cases. This is a view I still lean towards today. 

In the wake of the revelations about Savile, they also went after Rolf Harris, and a number of other old rockstars/celebrities, people like glam rocker Gary Glitter and Radio 1 DJ Dave Lee Travis, etc. Plenty more were probably "evaluated" but rejected for investigation for various reasons.

It may be nothing more than a hunch on my part, but I am also pretty sure the the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) take into consideration how someone looks and how critically evaluated they are. Having facial hair, curly hair, a certain "dark" mien, or just looking creepy seem to have been criteria employed in the selection of the prosecution targets. Also, people whose careers were now regarded as a bit tacky, naff, and unfashionable were more likely to be included in the dragnet.

Rolf Harris was a perfect fit for these criteria. In fact, evidence of actual paedoing may have been almost a secondary consideration. An examination of the case will at least partially support this hypothesis.

But the main question that has to be set above all others is this: Without the Rotherham Scandal would the "private lives" of any of these old celebs have been dredged up and examined? 

If not for Rotherham and death, he would probably have been at the Coronation

I haven't looked into the details of Savile and Glitter, but I assume, from various ways of inferring, that there was considerable evidence of paedoing. But I did look into the case of Rolf Harris, and, by contrast with Savile and Glitter, he seems to occupy more of a grey area. This means that he is a prime indicator of the real backstory to Operation Yewtree which was much more a political and "social cohesion" operation than a criminal one.

So, let's walk through the evidence that is easily accessible on the internet. Harris was 93 when he died, which means he was born in 1930. Age is important here because what we are dealing with is not the evilness of the acts but the evilness of the timing of the acts.

Also, let us also briefly consider society's own ambivalence about the age of consent: In 1275, the first age of consent was set in England at age 12. In 1875, it was raised to the age of 13, and in 1885 it was again raised to 16, where it remains today. So, there is some history here.

Also in the 1960s and 70s, all the "cultural and legislative traffic" was in the direction of "sexual liberation". Although the age of consent was never lowered below 16, there was at least an ethos that it "should be" or "would be" among many, especially those on the Left. Remember, this was the era of the Paedophile Information Exchange, which was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties, a mainstream organisation.

This was also the era of hysterical teenage fandoms, with young girls on either side of the "age of consent line" constantly "throwing themselves" at pop stars and famous people. 

In the hands of more ruthless investigators, Operation Yewtree could probably have dug up hundreds of cases much worse than that of Rolf Harris. In fact, with my knowledge of rock stars, I could probably give them plenty of good pointers.

Too cool to have his collar felt for banging a 14-year-old

But what about the charges against Rolf Harris?

You can read about the prosecution in his Wikipedia entry, but let me summarise. First of all, Harris was arrested in 2012, then released without charge. I wonder how that feels.

"Sorry Rolf, we thought you were a paedo. No hard feelings, mate. Can I have an autograph for the wife?"

This would have been the equivalent of putting a mark on him for any would-be accusers out there, either genuine cases or nutcases and gold diggers. Needless to say, when they next arrested him in 2013, they had a bit more "corroboration." Harris was then charged with nine counts of "indecent assault" and four counts of "making indecent images of children."

Sounds pretty bad. Just throw the book at him. Why bother with the disgusting details? But the devil, as frequently observed, is in the details.

The four counts of making indecent images of children didn't amount to much and were soon blown off.

"His legal team told Justice Nigel Sweeney in previously unreportable legal argument that the models in the photographs were over 18 according to their identity documents provided by website bosses in the Ukraine."

But then the CPS later dug up another 3 charges, so that Harris had to face 12 charges in court, involving 4 girls/women:

9 charges relating to:

a 14-year-old in the 1980s

a 15-16 year-old in the 1980s

3 additional charges relating to:

the same 14 year-old when she was 19

a 7-or-8-year-old in the 1960s

a 14-year-old in 1975

Starting with the youngest (Wiki):

"...he sexually assaulted an eight-year-old girl who asked for his autograph at a community centre in Hampshire in 1968 or 1969."

An event at a community centre. I'm guessing there were plenty of people around, with Harris being the centre of attention, so, at best, this sounds a bit ropey. Also notice the time gap - decades - and the extreme youth at the time of his accuser.

Next the 14 year-old:

"Harris was also accused of groping the bottom of a 14-year-old girl at a celebrity It's a Knockout event in Cambridge in 1975."

Again a highly public setting with actual TV camera on him. Can we have a VAR on whether it was "handball" or not? Or maybe the Metropolitan Police can just jet off to Italy and arrest half the population.

You might say I'm being "dismissive" of these two alleged "victims," but the details of the child porn allegations suggest that the CPS will literally throw in anything when it has decided on a target. "Quantity has a quality of its own," as their role model Joseph Stalin famously said.

Right, we have minimised the froth and noise a bit, so let's get to the more substantial part of the allegations. This is from a Guardian report on the charges: 

"[Harris] is accused of three counts of indecently assaulting a 14-year-old girl in 1986 and six of indecently assaulting a girl aged between 15 and 16 from 1980 to 1981."

From what I can understand, "assault" here means "grooming" if they are under 16 and "seducing" if they are over 16. Got to draw the line somewhere!

But even if we assume Harris waited the two years before getting his old 'digeridoo' out, as he claims, it's still pretty creepy for a 58 year-old man getting off with a 16 year-old girl. In the case of the other girl he would be 51 if he waited for her to be 16. Creepy as fuck, and they might well have felt sexually abused and violated, but if they were a day over 15 years and 364 days, then Rolf would technically and legally be in the clear.

So, what this case really boils down to is whether Rolf banged a couple of chicks a little early (while he was going through a mid-life crisis) and whom to believe on this, them or him. The jury clearly chose to believe the "young" ladies, and maybe they were right. I don't know. I wasn't there. But it's also clear that the CPS were throwing anything they could at Rolf, and some of that mud, rightly or wrongly, stuck.

I'm also pretty sure the "high quality" British press played its role by cooking up Operation Yewtree hysteria before and during the trial. There was no way the jury could be insulated from that. Also, for all sorts of influential political reasons, the push to offset the "racist" fallout of Rotherham could not be allowed to fail. 

In fact, the subsequent actions of the CPS look even more suspicious. Not content with convicting Harris on some of the original charges, it is clear they wanted to put a seal on this particular case. Luckily for Harris, things didn't work out quite so well for them.

In 2016, the CPS announced that Harris would face seven further indecent assault charges (Wiki):

"The offences allegedly occurred between 1971 and 2004 and involved seven complainants who were aged between 12 and 27 at the time."

However, none of those charges stuck. Harris was acquitted of three charges, while the judge "discharged the jury from deliberating on the further four counts." A retrial on the remaining charges went nowhere.

This takes us back to the eight-year-old girl he supposedly assaulted at a community centre in Hampshire in 1968 or 1969. In 2017 his conviction for this was overturned on the grounds that it was "unsafe," i.e. a load of old bollocks. 

My slightly distanced view of the case is that Harris was largely innocent or, at worst, marginally guilty of being a creepy old dude. But the party who looks really guilty here is the CPS and the British establishment, who were desperate to offset the "racist" fallout of the Rotherham Scandal by culling some of its most sexually privileged members.

Reprehensible as this is in itself, it should not surprise our readership here. The actions that the British establishment took to offset the fallout from interracial child rape are totally in keeping with the behaviour to be expected of the Anti-Racist State. 

Follow @cbliddell

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia).