We totally agree with Ludwig. Groping is totally different to rape. Groping was quite common behavior in the 50's and not treated seriously. Parents should have taught their children how to deal with this sort of thing. Poor Rolf was apparently well known for being "tactile" and parents should have taken more care of their offspring. Or were they more interested in getting their children to the top. It would seem that money might well be the driving force for the current case. If he was not famous (and rich) we would not be hearing anything about this. I hope all the likely future "damages" suits will be dismissed or the plaintiffs awarded just $1 only

How do you lead someone on when you're only just meeting them and find their hands caressing your buttocks?
Poirot,
You're having me on aren't you ? In my world when you just met someone you start off with talking to them etc.. If there's a mutual attraction then instinct will guide you. If someone, let me re-phrase that, if a strange woman started to pat me up & down within moments of meeting I'd be pulling away as fast as Hasbben did from his aircraft carrier. Even as a youngster I'd have reacted that way. What it was in this case, the girls were besotted because they were with a celebrity & therefore didn't want to reject him. Had any normal off-the-street bloke behaved that way they'd have screamed blue murder if he as much as looked at them. They simply got caught up in their own pursuit of a little closeness to fame & when they realised a few years later that it didn't get them anywhere they started the molesting caper. Was the judge in that case a male lookalike feminist by any chance ?

individual,

".... if a strange woman started to pat me up & down within moments of meeting I'd be pulling away as fast as Hasbben did from his aircraft carrier....."

This is what I'm saying. Meeting a celebrity, especially one renowned for his cuddly warm image like Rolf, receiving a "hug" and finding his hand in a place way beyond what's acceptable would be a shock. Everyone knows when someone has one "too far" in that respect. Imagine if we were hearing of a female celebrity meeting 13 year-old boys and putting her hand down their backs, caressing their buttocks and anything else in the vicinity.

And because his "groping" of relative strangers appears to be at the low end of molestation, you are blaming the girls because they didn't make a song and dance about it while his hands were still roaming.

Young girls meeting a friendly warm entertainer don't expect to be groped in areas that should be private, especially on a first meeting with celebrities.

Don't get me wrong, If there's one person I would have nominated to live next door to, it would have been Rolf, because he always seemed so lovely. I'm sad that my ideal "nice guy" has fallen from such heights.

I'll add that this :

"....They simply got caught up in their own pursuit of a little closeness to fame & when they realised a few years later that it didn't get them anywhere they started the molesting caper. Was the judge in that case a male lookalike feminist by any chance ?..."

...is crap!

Come off Indi and co, how can you push such a nonsensical line. Harris is a predictor who will get what he deserves! Just as Robert Hughes gets what he deserved. The pattern with these types of crimes, and make no mistake they people are criminals, a person perceived as an authority figure, be they an actor, or a Catholic priest, or what ever, take advantage of that position of authority to perpetrate crimes against vulnerable members of society, children!

cont'

cont'

Quoting some the nonsense posted so far!

<<It seems that the worst of it was a bit of groping,>> Diminished responsibility.

<<he was generally not thought of as being a pervert or pedophile, nor anything of the sort>> Who by? Other perverts and pedophiles, Harris wasn't a member of the club? That must be comforting to his victims.
<<Comparing him to the likes of pedophile priests or Jimmy Savile is like comparing a flea to a walrus>> Prove your innocence by pointing to worse offenders. Gee, Ivan Milat should have used that one, he could have pointed to Martin Bryant as a worse offender, could have got off.

<<The girls just led him on until they realised money could be made by stitching a bloke up>> It was the victims fault, they had an ulterior motive, they wanted to some time in the future make money. No was was it done for the pleasure of the perpetrator, it was done for the future money making aspirations of children.

<<I know ordinary blokes who are no different>> That's nice, you a few criminals also.

<<my daughters would be telling him off & that'd be it>> The childs fault, you must be wise in the ways of the world before you are 3, otherwise you cop what you deserve.

<<Groping is totally different to rape>> So is jaywalking...so.

<<Parents should have taught their children how to deal with this sort of thing>> So, if you can't blame the children then blame their parents, but never blame the perpetrator, don't forget he is a nice guy!
<<Poor Rolf>> The poor perpetrator, he been found out, shocking isn't it. My heart bleeds for poor Rolf.

I think we should just tie his kangaroo down sport, and cut off his extra leg! and that is the opinion of Jake the Peg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJleJbn9G6Y&feature=kp

What Rolf is alleged to have done was wrong, it was wrong in 1960 and it's still wrong in 2014, however....
The hysteria surrounding the case is way out of proportion to the offences and what's particularly disturbing is the way the organisations with which he was associated are taking this scorched earth approach to his life and works, in spite of his lewdness he did actually do some good in the world.
What also upsets me is that all these journo's and bloggers are now saying "Looking back there was always something a bit off about him".
Balls! Nobody thought that way until about 18 months ago, he fell from grace to be sure but he was never seen as a disgraceful character beforehand.
The other problem I have is with the hypocrisy over Harris, Saville and all is that other celebrities with higher profiles who are known or suspected to have had relations with underage girls are given the benefit of the doubt while the baying crowds are set upon B-list dorks and minor sensations from the seventies.
Where does it end? Should Charlie Chaplin's films be banned? The music of Jerry Lee Lewis, Ted Nugent, Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones?