Rolf Harris has gone into hiding and avoided addressing the number one court in the land, The Court of Public Opinion. Make no mistake, the British police want the media to name Rolf Harris and gave all the clues they could without actually naming him. They want the public’s help and this site will do its part to help the British police.
It has been a week since I did my post on the media failing to name Rolf Harris in the Jimmy Savile child sex scandal and it is time to look at some of evidence and address some misleading information. (Click here to read the previous post)
British Police want Rolf Harris named
The mainstream media have said they have not named Rolf Harris because the police have not confirmed that it was him that they arrested and questioned. So where did the mainstream media get the information that it was an 82-year-old Australian entertainer who lives in Berkshire that the police arrested and questioned. They got it from the police obviously. The police could have just said they had questioned an 82-year-old man and no one would have known who it was. But the police made sure that they gave enough details so it was easy to guess who it was with pin point accuracy. I have no doubt the police want people to come forward with evidence as it has been reported they are looking for potential victims and they want Rolf Harris’s name spread far and wide to help find victims.
Two lines in News Ltd report say a lot
There were two lines in a News Ltd report on the Rolf Harris matter and those two lines can tell a lot if it is true. The report said:
“The entertainer was first interviewed “under caution” by British police on
November 29 following a search of his home, about an hour west of London. It is
understood they have since been trying to identify potential victims.” (Click here to read more)
The part that says “they have since been trying to identify potential victims.” This to me says they have found either video tape or photos of girls and/or boys probably in their teens and it is hard to tell if they are underage or not and that why it says “potential victims” instead of victims. If the children were very young and clearly underage then it would have said “victims”.
I remember another matter in Australia where the police found child pornography of young children and they said they were now looking for the victims.
Another scenario is maybe that it was adults in strange situations that led police to believe that the adults had not participated on their own free will. My viewpoint though it is most likely photos and/or video of teenage children.
Is Rolf Harris guilty of any crime? Based on his actions I have no doubt he is. Exactly what we do not know but time will tell.
The Mainstream media have named Rolf Harris. But they have only done it Charade Style.
In my last post I focused on the fact that the MSM have not named Rolf Harris. But that it not totally accurate when you look at it from the perspective that they have given enough clues for him to be clearly identified. So to run the argument the mainstream media should not name him, which some have, is very misleading. Of course the mainstream media should name Rolf Harris in full, not play some charade style game by just giving clues. The Mainstream Media have embarrassed themselves and let everyone down.
Clear breach of crises management 101
The biggest pointer to Rolf Harris’s guilt is the fact that he has gone into hiding and left it to people to speculate without responding. This is a clear breach of crisis management 101 which says you have 48 hours to seize the moment and get your message out there in the media.
If Rolf Harris was not guilty of any crime he could have and should have called a press conference either last year when his name first started hitting social media or at the very least before or just after his police interview last week. Rolf Harris has a manager and lawyer and has probably employed a crisis management expert at this time. Any of them will tell you what you need to do in a situation like this and that the court of public opinion is just as important if not more important in some regards than a court of law.
Some headings from an article on crises management says what Rolf Harris should have done. And the fact that he has not done it says plenty. Anyone with any knowledge of crisis management will tell you that Mr Harris’s actions, or lack of, are the actions of a guilty party.
10 Rules of Crisis Management
1. Being Unprepared Is No Excuse. 2. You Know The Threats – Get Ready For Them. 3. Know What You Want To Say Before They Ask. 4 . Admit That You Are Wing-It-Challenged. 5. Three Key Messages For Every Crisis
6. Beware Of The Court Of Public Opinion. Lawyers play a very important part in any crisis. Their counsel on legal matters is paramount and should help guide the response. However, there are two courts in this world, and the court of public opinion is just as powerful as the court of law. The biggest challenge crisis leaders face is balancing their decisions based on these two courts. What may work in one, doesn’t always work in the other. The real question that needs to be addressed is quite simple – what is the smartest thing I can do to protect my brand? Winning in a court of law won’t necessarily restore the public trust you may have lost in the court of public opinion. Both are important – choose wisely.
7. You’ve Got 48 Hours. 8. Divide And Conquer. 9. Get Outside Help. (Click here to read more)
What Mr Harris has done is gone into hiding and left it to family and friends to tell the media how innocent and distressed he is. They want sympathy. They complained about social media naming him and what the social media have said about him yet Mr Harris has not come forward to defend himself. Why? Because he cannot if the police have evidence such as photos or video and his failure to address the media in my mind is clear admission that the police do have solid evidence. Rolf Harris has never really tried to win in the court of public opinion and is totally focused on winning in a court of law which most guilty parties do when there is solid evidence against them.
The fallacy of leave it to the courts and police and do not speculate
Some of the comments of the previous post I found odd. Especially the ones where people want to leave it to a court of law. This site is a judicial corruption site which names corrupt judges and magistrates. The people who made those comments should have had a better look around this site.
As far as leave it to the police is concerned, as I have stated above, they want our help.
Should we speculate? Of course we should. The court of public opinion is rapidly over taking the law courts because of their failings and the failings of the police around the globe. The court of public opinion needs to make and keep the police and courts honest, that is what this site is about.
The British police want our help, so help promote this post. The last post has been liked over 5000 times on Facebook so far, so let’s try and do the same again. We are the media now.
Make sure you follow this site by email which is on the top right of this page and about once a week you will get an email when there is a new post/story on this site.
This site is supported by donations. If you would like to help the continuance and growth of this site it would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation. Just click on the button below to donate via PayPal. Or for direct bank transfer details go to the donations page above.
If you would like to buy a t-shirt or coffee mug visit my online shop (Click here to visit the shop)
If you would like to buy a copy of my non-fiction book on corruption in the Australian judiciary that names names visit my website for the book which has links to the online bookshops. (Click here to visit the website)
Thank you for your support.