About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

July 5, 2014 1:00pm by David Farrar

Two UK jail terms

Rolf Harris gets 69 months for 12 offences against young girls, and Andy Coulson gets 18 months for phone hacking.

Share this:

Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading…

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment39

Uncategorized
United Kingdom

Related Stories

No extra time for the rape and sexual assault
Targeting Todd
Midwife gets off lightly

Comments (39)

Login to comment or vote

Dean Papa

How long did Rebekah Brooks get? Oh, ..wait. She is innocent, of course.
4 5
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 1:36pm
anticorruptionnz

Getting and serving are two different things Harris is only serving half isn’t he ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 2:02pm
MH

All those years..he got away with Daylight corroboree. Dream on.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 2:17pm
PaulP

The term “phone hacking” makes it sound so hi-tech.

In reality it seems many of the people “hacked” had left their voicemail PIN as the default 0000 or 1234 or didn’t load a PIN.

Not sure that accessing their voicemail deserves the term “hacking” being used!
4 2
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 2:22pm
Nukuleka

I note that another NZ woman is making claims about Harris groping her some 35 years ago. As with Maggie Barry’s revelations I can’t but wonder why these women didn’t say something or make complaints at the time rather than waiting decades. It is not as if Maggie Barry- or the second woman- were teenagers at the time. As a confident, articulate and successful professional woman Maggie Barry should have had the nous to speak up and gone to the police at the time. Who knows how many more vulnerable teenagers have had to endure Harris’s groping hands- or more- since that incident. Sadly Ms Barry appears to have been part of the problem and not the solution. Or did she fear that the police would not have believed her?!! It’s a wee bit late for her to be shutting the stable door now when the horse bolted long ago.

(Now watch for someone claiming that I’m blaming the victim and not the offender!!! I AM NOT.)
6 5
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 2:22pm
JMS

Sadly Ms Barry appears to have been part of the problem and not the solution. Or did she fear that the police would not have believed her?!!

She didn’t know he was doing it to young girls as well.
And coming forward probably would have ruined her career.
Speaking out against a pillar of the British Commonwealth in 1986: the media and much of the public would have eaten her alive. Whether the police believed her would have been her least concern.
8 3
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 2:30pm
jp_1983

Lord Archer did a few years for lying in a court as well.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 2:36pm
David Garrett

Speaking of Lord Archer, I see a number of references to Harris having “stripped of his honours”…The Brits aren’t that quick off the mark surely? After his conviction there was weeks of debate before Key decided to let Lord Montrose of Remuera keep his gong..
6 4
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 2:42pm
thedavincimode

… and here in NZild, cunners gets another 3 years to life for being a complete arse.
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 2:47pm
thedavincimode

Nukuleka

You aren’t giving Barry enough credit. Her response at the time was “fuck off creep” and that appears to have been it at the time. She hasn’t claimed a lifetime of trauma and substance abuse just because Harris stuck his hand on her leg. I don’t see why you are reading anything more into her comments that were in effect merely validating the fact that he was a creep.
17 2
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 2:55pm
Judith

@ Nukuleka (162 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 2:22 pm

I totally agree.
Ms Barry is an MP and therefore is meant to be aware of social issues. She is meant to be intelligent, and yet, when this happened with Harris, he was in New Zealand educating children about sexual abuse. Did she speak to someone, and say this man appears to have double standards? Did she lay an official complaint? No she did nothing.

When the information was released that he was being investigated, did this ‘socially responsible’ woman offer to act as witness to the kind of man he was? Did she do ANYTHING at all to help the victims? How many victims were harmed after Ms Barry was ‘molested’? How many could she have saved from the act, if she had spoken out?

Ms Barry did nothing. She didn’t tell anyone until she heard the guilty verdict – then Ms Barry, knowing it was ‘safe’ to be a victim of Harris, decided to tell her story – and as a consequence get her name in the news, front page, in the middle of an election campaign where she is wanting to draw attention to herself.

Ms Barry’s behaviour is a perfect example why she shouldn’t be in parliament – she has no concern for the victims of sexual abuse – her concern is only valid when there is something for her to personally gain from it. I have strong ‘reservations’ about Ms Barry being a reliable historian.
6 15
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 2:56pm
Rex Widerstrom

Coulson had political enemies, Harris didn’t. Anyone who thinks police and prosecutors aren’t influenced by political considerations is naive. Just look at NZ’s “email hacking” case – no one did that, apparently.
8 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 2:59pm
thedavincimode

Good grief. It looks like the demented waterwoman has created a protégé.
4 4
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 3:00pm
Judith

@ thedavincimode (6,419 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 2:55 pm

Ms Barry, as an adult, and a public figure had the moral obligation, given Harris’ profile and access to children, to make sure that others knew there was another side to his behaviour.

Even if she felt it wasn’t significant then (despite her now claiming it is) did she bother to make a complaint, or offer to give testimony at the hearings. I should imagine her testimony would have been appreciated. A sitting MP relating the event to a jury, would have been extremely worthwhile. But no, she didn’t. She didn’t do a god damn thing until the guilty verdict was given. THEN, when she knew she’d get press for it, she claimed her ‘victimisation’, and consequently got her name splashed all over the papers, whereas had she come forward when the matter was being investigated, there would have been no direct benefit to her.
1 13
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 3:02pm
Johnboy

Maggy’s getting a bit old and wrinkled looking Judith.

Maybe she just remembered that she was once young and desirable and wanted to tell us all about it! 🙂

Even if it was with Rolf!
4 7
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 3:07pm
Judith

JMS (265 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 2:30 pm
Sadly Ms Barry appears to have been part of the problem and not the solution. Or did she fear that the police would not have believed her?!!

She didn’t know he was doing it to young girls as well.

More than two years ago the world knew of the investigation into Harris’ behaviour with young girls.

TWO years to make her story known. TWO years to offer to assist the victims in their attempts to bring him to account for his behaviour.

But then TWO years ago wasn’t an election year, and TWO years ago, Ms Barry had no incentive to have her name out there in the media. Six months ago, there was not real personal incentive – but NOW, a couple of months from the election, getting ones name on the front page and getting sympathy is a GREAT incentive, to tell her story.

Where is Maggie Barry’s social conscience? Where is Maggie Barry’s concern for the victims? Where is there any demonstration of Maggie Barry’s concern for anyone but herself?
3 13
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 3:09pm
Johnboy

Maybe Maggie should have apologised to Rolf for tempting him by being a woman Judith! 🙂
5 3
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 3:11pm
Judith

Johnboy (14,627 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 3:07 pm
Maggy’s getting a bit old and wrinkled looking Judith.

I suspect that being old and wrinkled has a lot to do with this case.

Having attention, even unwanted sexual attention from someone that is a celebrity and not that bad looking is okay. But when that same celeb turns old, wrinkled and ugly and you are reminded of what you once let him do to you – suddenly you are fraught with guilt, revolted by the thought, and every negative thing that has happened in your life, becomes about what he did.

That doesn’t mean they weren’t victimised, or haven’t suffered the effects of that behaviour, which was wrong, but they lived okay with those memories for quite a while, before any of them decided is was important enough to lay a complaint. But then Harris was getting old, and if he’d died before they acted, they wouldn’t have any claims on his fortune. It had to be now, or never.

And as we have seen, a lot of benefits to be had in going public. My experience with victims of sexual abuse is that they want privacy – all sorts, I guess.
2 9
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 3:14pm
Johnboy

But Jimmy Saville is dead Judith. How do you compute that with what you just inferred regarding Rolf’s victims?
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 3:16pm
Rex Widerstrom

Thedavincimode suggests:

Good grief. It looks like the demented waterwoman has created a protégé.

Brash was from the right. In her world that would mean either he faked the whole thing, or someone from Act did it, as the left can do no wrong.

But you’re breathing the same rarified air if you think when it’s “not in the public interest” to prosecute political-related crimes that it’s actually not in the public interest. And vice versa. Police and prosecutors get their patronage from politicians, after all.

Someone had to cop it for hacking phones, especially of a teenage murder victim. Had it been Brooks, a thousand photos of everyone from Blair to Cameron swooning as she made kissy face with them would have hit the media. The somewhat acerbic Coulson kissed no one. Nor was he the hand picked mentee of Rupert Murdoch. Ergo, he’s separated from the pack and fed to the lions. Now we can all sleep easy knowing the coquettish Ms Brooks and kindly old Rupert would never dream of using such tactics. And Britons can rest assured that their leaders don’t kiss the wrong ~~arse~~ sorry, face, ever.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 3:34pm
thedavincimode

Penny II

You make less and less sense each day that passes. Your ridiculous assertion is nothing more than an inane justification for the “me too” phenomenon ie “my life is ruined and how can I get some cash” syndrome. Attributing some public duty or obligation to Barry just because she was on the radio, the goggle box and now in Parliament is nothing more than justifying of a gross violation of her privacy.

No doubt if she had gone public when the Harris trial started, you would have been the first person up on her hind legs braying about Barry attention-seeking.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 3:41pm
Judith

@ Johnboy (14,633 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 3:16 pm

I was talking about Rolf Harris. Jimmy Saville has never been tried. We do not know what his defense might have been or even if the accusations about him are even true, because they have never been tested.

Let’s not forget our own Peter Ellis – things like this have the ability to take on a life of their own.
2 8
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 3:43pm
Judith

@ thedavincimode (6,421 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 3:41 pm

If she had come forward and offered her testimony to assist in the trial and bringing some support to the victims I would have hailed her as a heroine. As it stands, I simply don’t believe her and I most certainly don’t see her as anything more than grabbing some attention at a time when it does her the most benefit.

She is a public figure, a member of parliament, if she has no concern for the moral well being and operation of society, she shouldn’t have that job.
1 9
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 3:45pm
Mike

The victim blaming/shaming by Judith (and that nukuleku person) is pretty appalling. Harris fans in denial?

“That doesn’t mean they weren’t victimised, or haven’t suffered the effects of that behaviour, which was wrong, but they lived okay with those memories for quite a while, before any of them decided is was important enough to lay a complaint”

This is just shameful, easily some of the most vile stuff i have seen posted on this blog (from the lovey dovey liberal!). How on gods green earth would you know that “they lived okay”? Not speaking out doesn’t indicate that they were fine with the ordeal.
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 3:50pm
Mike

You are quite literally using Maggie’s experience with sexual abuse as a device to attack her and score political points. Is stooping to such a low level commonplace among the left? It is not only an insult to Maggie but it is belittling to all survivors of sexual abuse. I urge you to reconsider this behavior.
9 2
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 3:59pm
thedavincimode

That’s right PennyII

TO: Director Public Prosecutions
Pommyland

Dear Sir/Madam

My name is Maggie Barry. I used to do morning current affairs on National Radio down in the colonies. Then I got bored with that and did some gardening. And then I did a TV gardening programme with Bill and the Prof. The Prof was a really neat old guy and very popular but sadly he is no longer with us.

Then I had a bit of a rest from the public eye but eventually decided to stand for Parliament (successfully as it happens).

As a consequence of the time I have spent in the public eye and my role as an MP in the colonies, I have a MORAL OBLIGATION to tell you that 30 years ago, Rolf Harris put his hand on top of my leg just prior a radio interview that I did with him. I said: “fuck off you dodgy disgusting little creep” and he didn’t seem as friendly after that because he didn’t try it on again.

This event traumatised me severely and is inevitably the reason I wound up in Parliament and could not find happiness in my garden.

I note with OUTRAGE that Harris has been charged with not only serial groping, but far more seriously, sexual violation. Accordingly, and in light of my MORAL OBLIGATION, I offer myself as a prosecution witness in his trial. I have no doubt that my evidence will put him away and possibly even force him to plead guilty to the charges against him.

Yours in outrage and indignation

Maggie Barry
MP
Thigh Touch Victim
10 1
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 4:03pm
Johnboy

I gave you one for that Leonardo only cause I couldn’t give you 200! 🙂
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 4:09pm
thedavincimode

Thanks JB

I’ll count that as 200 the next time reddie puffs his chest out about his scores. 🙂
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 4:11pm
Nukuleka

Mike- as I said in my original post I was expecting someone to suggest that I was ‘victim blaming’ which was not my intention at all. I did not blame anyone for enticing Rolf Harris into feeling them up, least of all the delightful Maggy Barry !!

Nor am I a political opponent of Maggy Barry whom I like and admire enormously. Her voice is enough to get me going, let lone that mane of devilish red hair…

My post made it quite clear that what I can not understand is why an intelligent and articulate woman would not have had some inkling that she wasn’t the only person being subjected to Harris’s groping hands and why she didn’t do something about it at the time. If opponents of Ms Barry’s have now seized upon my comments and used them for their own purpose then that is their affair and not mine. I certainly did not accuse her of using the Harris guilty verdict as a media opportunity.

Please note, Mike, that my pseudonym is Nukuleka which is at some variance to the charming phrase you used ‘that nukuleku person’!
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 4:38pm
Judith

@ Mike (396 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 3:59 pm

Yeah Mike, and you NEVER take the opportunity to use a situation to poke shit at any political opponents.

The fact is, that Maggie Barry was a MP. She would have been considered a mature and responsible witness and her evidence would have assisted in showing the demeanor of the accused. There were several witnesses who came forward and gave statements in court regarding similar experiences as Barry’s, but given her standing, her’s would have been extremely beneficial. But she didn’t consider the case important enough to do anything – at least not until now, when the timing is extremely beneficial to her.

You are letting your political bias affect your judgement. If the roles were different, and this was a Labour MP that had failed to come forward with relevant evidence, you’d be all over it like a rash – you’re a hypocrite.

I’ve worked very closely with victims of sexual abuse and rape etc – Maggie Barry is not a victim – she’s just decided to act like one.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 4:42pm
Johnboy

“You are letting your political bias affect your judgement. If the roles were different, and this was a Labour MP that had failed to come forward with relevant evidence”………………….Yep Judith!!!!! 🙂
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 4:44pm
Mike

Nukuleka,

My apologies for misspelling your pseudonym. I further apologize if i am misconstruing your position, but it does indeed appear to be victim shaming (note: not blaming, but equally as immoral), your advance notice that you expected such an accusation to come forward is an indication of some awareness of this on your part. You made a comment that you “wonder why” Maggie had not come forth with the accusation at an earlier time, this implies that you either think that she is falsifying the claim, or that she is making it with some sort of alternative intention. For sake of expediency, it would be nice if you would just spit out what you actually think as opposed to attempting to dress up your conclusions behind a thin veil of curiosity.

Yesterday you stated that you essentially think that Saville is innocent, as he was never convicted in a court of law (omitting the fact that he died before revelations came to light). This implies that you think that the mountain of evidence (and hundreds of victims) are all financially motivated liars. It really is a very bizarre position to hold. Furthermore, it implies that you think that Saville is unfairly castigated. Please either correct me, or confirm that you hold these positions.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 4:48pm
Longknives

I too find it odd that Maggie Barry has ‘remembered’ all this and jumped on the bandwagon AFTER Rolf has been convicted!
Why?? If she is so ‘traumatised’ about it surely she would have spoken up ages ago (or at least when this investigation hit the headlines)?
*Christ did I just agree with Judith? Must be time for a drink….
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 4:51pm
Mike

Judith,

There is a mountain of difference between someone who uses a genuine political issue as a platform to launch a critique, and someone who uses a victim of sexual violence to score political points. It is my assessment that you fall into this latter camp.

I am glad that you have come forth and outright admitted that you think that Maggie is a liar. It was obvious as shit before, but at least all doubt is removed. Is this a viewpoint which is commonplace among your accomplices on the left? Political differences aside, i am inclined to believe that both sides of the aisle (save for a fringe on either side, who seem to be among us in here) would hold your view to be contemptuous. This should tell you something.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 4:54pm
Johnboy

You look in the mirror..see all the wrinkles…then you remember what once was! 🙂
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 4:55pm
holysheet

Wait for it, Dorothy cunners is about to say he is terribly sorry for being a molester of young and not so young girls.
If its good enough for him to say sorry for being a man then its good enough for him to say sorry about this.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 5:13pm
Sponge

Judith,

Maggie Barry could not have testified as Harris could only be tried for crimes committed int he UK. Her testimony would not have been admissible.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 7:10pm
MH

I really thought they’d send him to Botany Bay.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 5, 2014 9:44pm
OECD rank 22 kiwi

So many witches in the UK. At least Coronation Street is safe. The BBC, not so much.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 6, 2014 3:12am

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Hosking and Watkins on Labour

Key on euthanasia »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 13K other subscribers

Highlights

Target achieved II
Good progress on attendance
Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments

Top Stories

General Debate 22 June 2026
General Debate 23 June 2026
Don't defend the indefensible
The Greens $800 million blunder
Not sure about this one
Finally common sense wins at WCC
Regulators are not soverign entities
Be careful what you ask for with IMSB
The price of gold
National proposes compulsory KiwiSaver

Recent Posts

Be careful what you ask for with IMSB 23 June 2026
Regulators are not soverign entities 23 June 2026
General Debate 23 June 2026 23 June 2026
The Greens $800 million blunder 23 June 2026
Not sure about this one 22 June 2026
Don’t defend the indefensible 22 June 2026
General Debate 22 June 2026 22 June 2026
Finally common sense wins at WCC 22 June 2026
The price of gold 21 June 2026
National proposes compulsory KiwiSaver 21 June 2026
Two good appointments for The Post 21 June 2026
General Debate 21 June 2026 21 June 2026

Recent Comments

General Debate 23 June 2026
NZer In Exile
Be careful what you ask for with IMSB
Ghost
General Debate 23 June 2026
NZer In Exile
Be careful what you ask for with IMSB
OECD rank 22 kiwi
Be careful what you ask for with IMSB
PaulL
General Debate 23 June 2026
Ghost
General Debate 23 June 2026
Ghost
General Debate 23 June 2026
Maggy Wassilieff
General Debate 23 June 2026
Homeworker
General Debate 23 June 2026
Homeworker
General Debate 23 June 2026
Ghost
General Debate 23 June 2026
Maggy Wassilieff
General Debate 23 June 2026
tavita
General Debate 23 June 2026
NeverMindTheBollocks
General Debate 23 June 2026
pb

Links

1 News Verian Poll: Big two parties at 30-year low, Opportunity nears 5% threshold
Breaking Views
'The Myth of Authoritarian Efficiency'
Not PC
No tears for Starmer
The Standard
NRL Predictions for Round 17
Stats Chat
Word of the day
Hompaddock
The Story of Lola, Ruth, Mayah and the Strolling Bulgarians
No Minister
How Chlöe is taxing our credibility when she says flawed figures flowed from a “typo”
Point of Order
8pm LIVE TONIGHT The Bradbury Group with Labour Leader Chris Hipkins, NZCTU President Sandra Grey + Political Panel – Matthew Hooton, Fran O’Sullivan + Max Harris
The Daily Blog
The Partition: Ireland Divided 1885 to 1925 by Charles Townshend (2021)
Utopia
Time to tax the rich
No Right Turn
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on Systemic Change.
Kiwipolitico
Alex Berenson on Fatherhood Manifesto, Marijuana & Biden’s COVID
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
People Power
NZCPR
Levies as end-runs around the Generic Tax Policy Process
Offsetting Behaviour
A central banker’s fiction
Croaking Cassandra
THE WORKING FROM HOME RACKET BY PUBLIC SERVANTS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Get Vaccinated Tomorrow Or Shut Your Pie Hole
Cactus Kate
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker

[email protected]

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2026 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d