|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Dec 23, 2013 8:51:21 GMT
So Rolf Harris has been charged for the sexual assault of children as young as 7 years old. There has been plenty of vitriolic discussion about Savile and Stuart Hall, along with Jim Davidson (so far unfounded); so why is cuddly Uncle Rolf getting such an easy ride from us?
Granted, he's not been proven guilty yet, and it's not a good idea to prejudge the outcome of his trial (should it get that far), but that has not stopped us in the past. Is it because the three other names I've mentioned have always been controversial and people like to stick the knife in?
I'm guessing that we simply don't want to believe that our Rolf could have been involved in such evil behavior.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2013 11:15:00 GMT
So Rolf Harris has been charged for the sexual assault of children as young as 7 years old. There has been plenty of vitriolic discussion about Savile and Stuart Hall, along with Jim Davidson (so far unfounded); so why is cuddly Uncle Rolf getting such an easy ride from us? Granted, he's not been proven guilty yet, and it's not a good idea to prejudge the outcome of his trial (should it get that far), but that has not stopped us in the past. Is it because the three other names I've mentioned have always been controversial and people like to stick the knife in? I'm guessing that we simply don't want to believe that our Rolf could have been involved in such evil behavior. I think you are right there , of all these despicable characters that have been exposed , Rolf Harris has been the one that has disappointed many people , myself included |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Dec 23, 2013 11:19:20 GMT
All charges against Jim Davidson have been dropped and I think he is, along with Freddie Starr, going on the offensive and suing their accusers for defamation, slander etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2013 12:36:03 GMT
All charges against Jim Davidson have been dropped and I think he is, along with Freddie Starr, going on the offensive and suing their accusers for defamation, slander etc. Quite right too, they should name the people accusing them when there is no case to answer & have done nothing wrong. I'm hoping Rolf is innocent, such a shame, and Fred Talbot too for that matter, i'm sure he fell off his map once, many moons ago. TEST |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 23, 2013 15:37:49 GMT
So Rolf Harris has been charged for the sexual assault of children as young as 7 years old. There has been plenty of vitriolic discussion about Savile and Stuart Hall, along with Jim Davidson (so far unfounded); so why is cuddly Uncle Rolf getting such an easy ride from us? Granted, he's not been proven guilty yet, and it's not a good idea to prejudge the outcome of his trial (should it get that far), but that has not stopped us in the past. Is it because the three other names I've mentioned have always been controversial and people like to stick the knife in? I'm guessing that we simply don't want to believe that our Rolf could have been involved in such evil behavior. I think you are right there , of all these despicable characters that have been exposed , Rolf Harris has been the one that has disappointed many people , myself included If "Rolf Harris has disappointed you" you are prejudging his guilt, maybe? Rolf is an interesting case - I notice that he is alleged to have "made an indecent image of a child" as recently as this year. Could this be a painting rather than a video or a photo? If so, his defence may be interesting given that he is a (still active) painter. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2013 18:13:05 GMT
I think you are right there , of all these despicable characters that have been exposed , Rolf Harris has been the one that has disappointed many people , myself included If "Rolf Harris has disappointed you" you are prejudging his guilt, maybe? Rolf is an interesting case - I notice that he is alleged to have "made an indecent image of a child" as recently as this year. Could this be a painting rather than a video or a photo? If so, his defence may be interesting given that he is a (still active) painter. The making of a photo can include downloading or saving an image and are usually charged alongside standard 'possession' offences. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 23, 2013 18:53:52 GMT
If "Rolf Harris has disappointed you" you are prejudging his guilt, maybe? Rolf is an interesting case - I notice that he is alleged to have "made an indecent image of a child" as recently as this year. Could this be a painting rather than a video or a photo? If so, his defence may be interesting given that he is a (still active) painter. The making of a photo can include downloading or saving an image and are usually charged alongside standard 'possession' offences. Yes, I know that. I just wondered if, in this case, because Rolf is a painter, whether this could be his own painting rather than the usual downloaded photo or video. We'll find out next year at the trial. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2013 22:36:06 GMT
I think you are right there , of all these despicable characters that have been exposed , Rolf Harris has been the one that has disappointed many people , myself included If "Rolf Harris has disappointed you" you are prejudging his guilt, maybe? Rolf is an interesting case - I notice that he is alleged to have "made an indecent image of a child" as recently as this year. Could this be a painting rather than a video or a photo? If so, his defence may be interesting given that he is a (still active) painter. Yes....I remember you warning us all about pre judging Jimmy Savile too...but this case is different. I suppose when several incidents are reported to police with little or no connection over several decades then it is only natural that peoples suspicions are aroused regardless of how popular the defendant happens to be in public life. I read somewhere that Rolf has been almost suicidal over these allegations but I think I would be more interested in clearing my name if the allegations made against me were false, but again no one should jump to conclusions as me must be clearly depressed by the whole thing. When investigations like Rolf's are held in relative secret and out of the public eye for as long as this one has ,then the omens don't look too good especially when numerous victims are involved. Just hope the correct verdict is administered whatever that is. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25489501 |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 23, 2013 22:46:30 GMT
If "Rolf Harris has disappointed you" you are prejudging his guilt, maybe? Rolf is an interesting case - I notice that he is alleged to have "made an indecent image of a child" as recently as this year. Could this be a painting rather than a video or a photo? If so, his defence may be interesting given that he is a (still active) painter. Yes....I remember you warning us all about pre judging Jimmy Savile too...but this case is different. I suppose when several incidents are reported to police with little or no connection over several decades then it is only natural that peoples suspicions are aroused regardless of how popular the defendant happens to be in public life. I read somewhere that Rolf has been almost suicidal over these allegations but I think I would be more interested in clearing my name if the allegations made against me were false, but again no one should jump to conclusions as me must be clearly depressed by the whole thing. When investigations like Rolf's are held in relative secret and out of the public eye for as long as this one has ,then the omens don't look too good especially when numerous victims are involved. Just hope the correct verdict is administered whatever that is. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25489501It was really only the words "Rolf has disappointed me" that I was alluding to. That does imply guilt - safer to use the words "if true, then this would disappoint me" that would reflect the feelings of a lot of people (including me) and would not prejudge the trial. You could say I am being picky about the words used on a football message board but, sometime sooner or later, a trial is going to be stopped on the grounds that the defendant can't get a fair trial on account of things published on twitter, facebook and message boards. That would be sad - I don't want to see anyone (who is guilty) to be aquitted because the chattering masses could not avoid pre judging criminal cases before they came to trial. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2013 23:16:34 GMT
Yes....Absolutely.
The social media has already been implicated in scores of trials already and the danger is that people are 'tried' before it ever goes to go court.
I suppose it is inevitable and I think it is only a matter of time before new legislation is brought in to counter this threat against the judicial system and conducting a fair trial in every instance must be paramount
I still think however that signing Michael Owen was fucking criminal and the perpetrator should have been sacked.
mumf
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2013 2:26:48 GMT
I think you are right there , of all these despicable characters that have been exposed , Rolf Harris has been the one that has disappointed many people , myself included If "Rolf Harris has disappointed you" you are prejudging his guilt, maybe? Rolf is an interesting case - I notice that he is alleged to have "made an indecent image of a child" as recently as this year. Could this be a painting rather than a video or a photo? If so, his defence may be interesting given that he is a (still active) painter. I did not use the words " Rolf has disappointed me " did I ? ....so therefore I am not prejudging him in any way ....please don't attempt to put words into my my mouth ....in no way did I infer that he was guilty of anything ......no prizes on offer for being a smart Alec By the way I liked Rolf Harris .....and I am disappointed that he has been named in these allegations ....I hope that he is indeed innocent ...you know as well as the rest of us that the image you are referring to is unlikely to be a painting ....! Surely you do not wish to seem so obtuse ? |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 24, 2013 6:33:37 GMT
If "Rolf Harris has disappointed you" you are prejudging his guilt, maybe? Rolf is an interesting case - I notice that he is alleged to have "made an indecent image of a child" as recently as this year. Could this be a painting rather than a video or a photo? If so, his defence may be interesting given that he is a (still active) painter. I did not use the words " Rolf has disappointed me " did I ? ....so therefore I am not prejudging him in any way ....please don't attempt to put words into my my mouth ....in no way did I infer that he was guilty of anything ......no prizes on offer for being a smart Alec By the way I liked Rolf Harris .....and I am disappointed that he has been named in these allegations ....I hope that he is indeed innocent ...you know as well as the rest of us that the image you are referring to is unlikely to be a painting ....! Surely you do not wish to seem so obtuse ? Bispham, I had worked out that you liked Rolf Harris, as did I. And I do apologise for contracting your words. But, as I explained in a later post to mumf above, I still think the words you used are ambiguous - safer by far to say something like "the Rolf Harris case (or accusations) have disappointed me." The words I have underlined are the ones which remove the ambiguity. As I also explained above it is the "trial by message board" (or twitter etc.) which worries me. As I also said to mumf, however much I liked someone who is now accused, I would hate them (if guilty) to get off because a judge ruled that internet chat had prejudiced a trial. And, sooner or later, that IS going to happen. Now, I doubt that the musings of us on this message board constitutes prejudice, but personally I try to make my words as non judgemental as I can when discussing cases due in court. We're on the same side Bispham - honest!  |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 24, 2013 6:57:27 GMT
Yes....Absolutely. The social media has already been implicated in scores of trials already and the danger is that people are 'tried' before it ever goes to go court. I suppose it is inevitable and I think it is only a matter of time before new legislation is brought in to counter this threat against the judicial system and conducting a fair trial in every instance must be paramount I still think however that signing Michael Owen was fucking criminal and the perpetrator should have been sacked.
mumf In effect he was! Although the one who signed the cheque (Tony Scholes) is still with us! |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Dec 24, 2013 6:58:50 GMT
"Can you guess what it is yet"
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Dec 26, 2013 6:58:12 GMT
A few years ago several celebrities were arrested for subscribing to that child abuse website and it was an obnoxious example of warped celebity obsession. Matthew Kelly got jibes and jokes and riduicule and smirks and a baying media rubbing its hands with glee. Kelly's career has never recovered from the accusations despite them all charges being dropped. Pete Townsend got sympathy and respect. So he can't have funded something like that? Why? Because he's a 'good bloke?' Because he wrote My Generation? He broke the law. Downloading that stuff is an offence in itself. Kids get abused to fill those webpages. He was effectively a collaborator. If he was researching a book he was writing (as he claimed) why didn't he get legal cover first? For a man who has been in the public eye for so many reasons for so many years his naivety was staggering.
The thing is Kelly was always considered an annoying twat and Townsend is a rock icon. Similarly, The Harris case is relatively overlooked because people simply don't want to believe he's guilty. The most important thing in any court case is for the truth to be discovered and justice to be done. Rolf Harris mustn't be found not guilty because he was on Animal Hospital or because he painted the queen.
Sometimes the response to these cases say much about warped obsession with celebrity and have very little to do with protecting shildren.
|
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Dec 26, 2013 7:15:55 GMT
Thank God Tony Hart's sexual abuse of Morph never saw the light of day.
|
|
|
|
Post by heavysoul on Dec 26, 2013 10:11:54 GMT
When he is charged I wonder what the Queen will do with the portrait he painted of her?
|
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Dec 26, 2013 17:13:50 GMT
I still think however that signing Michael Owen was fucking criminal and the perpetrator should have been sacked. mumf Hmmm, I don't think the signing was criminal, but the idiot who asked for him and then gave him absolutely no chance and played him in midfield against Palace needs shooting... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2013 21:56:03 GMT
A few years ago several celebrities were arrested for subscribing to that child abuse website and it was an obnoxious example of warped celebity obsession. Matthew Kelly got jibes and jokes and riduicule and smirks and a baying media rubbing its hands with glee. Kelly's career has never recovered from the accusations despite them all charges being dropped. Pete Townsend got sympathy and respect. So he can't have funded something like that? Why? Because he's a 'good bloke?' Because he wrote My Generation? He broke the law. Downloading that stuff is an offence in itself. Kids get abused to fill those webpages. He was effectively a collaborator. If he was researching a book he was writing (as he claimed) why didn't he get legal cover first? For a man who has been in the public eye for so many reasons for so many years his naivety was staggering. The thing is Kelly was always considered an annoying twat and Townsend is a rock icon. Similarly, The Harris case is relatively overlooked because people simply don't want to believe he's guilty. The most important thing in any court case is for the truth to be discovered and justice to be done. Rolf Harris mustn't be found not guilty because he was on Animal Hospital or because he painted the queen. Sometimes the response to these cases say much about warped obsession with celebrity and have very little to do with protecting shildren. You bet! TEST |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2013 22:00:23 GMT
I still think however that signing Michael Owen was fucking criminal and the perpetrator should have been sacked. mumf Hmmm, I don't think the signing was criminal, but the idiot who asked for him and then gave him absolutely no chance and played him in midfield against Palace needs shooting... I still believe he was a super signing, but the fact he was never used correctly is the blow. he could have scored many goals for us. Anyway, what has this got to do with Rolfy? :/ TEST |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2013 22:22:06 GMT
Hmmm, I don't think the signing was criminal, but the idiot who asked for him and then gave him absolutely no chance and played him in midfield against Palace needs shooting... I still believe he was a super signing, but the fact he was never used correctly is the blow. he could have scored many goals for us. Anyway, what has this got to do with Rolfy? :/ TEST This comes as no great surprise to me... The fact that Michael Owens career was practically finished 2 years previous to join Stoke and the fact that he chose to retire 12 months later also didn't surprise me, but some peoples vision is slightly better than others... It says more about Owens real motives than anything I could have alluded to. We were in a 'one horse race' to sign Owen...and we won. The rest is history as they say. The final nail in Tones Coffin perhaps. As for Rolf Harris....I'd probably have preferred him to Owen tbh. There wasn't much in it in terms of fitness |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2013 22:34:45 GMT
I still believe he was a super signing, but the fact he was never used correctly is the blow. he could have scored many goals for us. Anyway, what has this got to do with Rolfy? :/ TEST This comes as no great surprise to me... The fact that Michael Owens career was practically finished 2 years previous to join Stoke and the fact that he chose to retire 12 months later also didn't surprise me, but some peoples vision is slightly better than others... It says more about Owens real motives than anything I could have alluded to. We were in a one horse to sign Owen...and we won. The rest is history as they say. The final nail in Tones Coffin perhaps. As for Rolf Harris....I'd probably have preferred him to Owen tbh. There wasn't much in it in terms of fitness  Cracking win for Tony today...can't wait for palace away, standing ovation needed & "Tony give us a wave".. as long as we win at the end.. TEST |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 27, 2013 3:35:32 GMT
All charges against Jim Davidson have been dropped and I think he is, along with Freddie Starr, going on the offensive and suing their accusers for defamation, slander etc. It doesn't mean they didn't though does it? |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Dec 27, 2013 5:51:15 GMT
All charges against Jim Davidson have been dropped and I think he is, along with Freddie Starr, going on the offensive and suing their accusers for defamation, slander etc. It doesn't mean they didn't though does it? This is always going to be the problem when celebrity's are named and shamed , mud sticks and they are damned if they did and damned if they didnt , take the cases of Michael le vel , lord MacAlpine , dave jones , I don't think celebrities are given any special treatment as joe suggests .just the opposite in fact . People in the public eye are sitting targets for erroneous charges from people with a grudge . I have enough faith in our criminal justice system to get to the truth |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Dec 27, 2013 7:13:03 GMT
All charges against Jim Davidson have been dropped and I think he is, along with Freddie Starr, going on the offensive and suing their accusers for defamation, slander etc. It doesn't mean they didn't though does it? That's very true. It means that the CPS and Police do not have enough evidence to prosecute. However we tread a dangerous path if we presume guilt until proven innocent. It would mean every single case of alleged sexual abuse comes before a court of law regardless of evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by SamB_SCFC on Dec 27, 2013 8:46:19 GMT
It doesn't mean they didn't though does it? This is always going to be the problem when celebrity's are named and shamed , mud sticks and they are damned if they did and damned if they didnt , take the cases of Michael le vel , lord MacAlpine , dave jones , I don't think celebrities are given any special treatment as joe suggests .just the opposite in fact . People in the public eye are sitting targets for erroneous charges from people with a grudge . I have enough faith in our criminal justice system to get to the truth And this is why there should be anonymity for the accused aswell as for the victim in sex offence cases until conviction. Mud sticks, for normal people as well as celebrities and a man's life can be completely ruined by a false allegation. Obviously in the case of celebrities names will probably get out on twitter and the like but it would be a start and ensure that those people naming names end up in court themselves. Once they've been convicted then their names can be shouted from the rooftops but until then innocence must be presumed and the only way to protect that in sex offence cases is with anonymity. |
|
Cracking win for Tony today...can't wait for palace away, standing ovation needed & "Tony give us a wave".. as long as we win at the end..
