PDA

View Full Version : Rolf Harris



Pages : [1] 2 3

truewheel
20-04-2013, 06:41 AM
It sure says something about the shock & disbelief of Rolf's arrest that the entire Aussie media took weeks to publish the event. Anyone else and they would have been all over it.

So sad that perhaps the most iconic Australian of all time is charged with kiddy fiddling. We all thought that Rolf represented all that was good about Aussies, instead it looks like it's all that's evil in humans...

*sigh* What is the world coming to? Who's next? Skippy? B1 & B2?

You were us Rolf. We all identified with you and we were proud that the rest of the world did too...

This is totally fucked.

Al_86
20-04-2013, 07:31 AM
Has he actually been charged? The articles I've read state he's been taken into custody but no mention of an official charge.

chief wiggum
20-04-2013, 07:37 AM
from what i gathered from the news last night, he'd been questioned, not charged

Sventek
20-04-2013, 07:44 AM
No, he hasn't been charged. He was arrested for questioning. FWIW, my family on both sides know him very well. My mother went to school with him, as did my father-in-law, and they stay in regular contact. While it's not the sort of thing you'd tell people, they don't believe that he would be capable of anything like that.

kapyong
20-04-2013, 07:46 AM
It was very evident that it was Rolf back in Nov and Mar, it was easy enough to join the dots and he has not been charged with anything at all. So be careful using the term kiddy fiddler and his name in the same sentence.

This has come about from a wider investigation of all and any allegations stemming from, but not related to, the Saville investigation however mainly concentrating on those that had an association with the BBC.

Rolf is not the only personality that has been accused and investigated, there are a growing number of UK entertainers in a similar boat who are professing their innocence over all and any allegations. I would not be surprised if there are ramifications for Scotland Yard at the end of this witch hunt as many see this overzealous farce as an embarrassment and abuse of power. I am not referring only to those under investigation!

Use Google and you will see that many people are totally and understandably pissed off with the investigations and not only those accused.

I am disappointed in what has occurred thus far, not only for Rolf but the many others that have been tarred with the Saville brush.

Oh No, not Basil Brush as well!

SPman
20-04-2013, 07:52 AM
The trouble is, some mud always sticks, regardless of guilt or innocence. Sad but true.

AliastheJester
20-04-2013, 08:17 AM
The British Media were not publishing his name previously, although it was the worlds worst kept secret who it was. Trust The Sun to be the one that does it. I really don't think the media should be able to name names or release details until after a conviction, the people that need to know what is going on can be kept informed by the CPS and Police.

truewheel
20-04-2013, 08:41 AM
I really hope all these allegations are completely baseless. But if not, well no one is above the law and he should receive the same punishment as any random.

Its weird, here I am an adult, yet I felt like I'd lost some innocence when I heard the news. I only found out through Last weeks Media Watch, who were arguing the case re media blackout or not. Even they only described an 'elderly internationally famous children's entertainer'.

I was like, WTF it can't be Rolf. Though to be fair, I'm not going to prejudge anything until the investigation plays out.

Barfridge
20-04-2013, 12:54 PM
personally I'd rather spend my sympathy on the victims, rather than the accused (be they charged/convicted or not)

GreenMeanie
20-04-2013, 01:19 PM
I'm Jake the Peg
Do you want to play with my middle diddle

smoothpierre
20-04-2013, 01:36 PM
No, he hasn't been charged. He was arrested for questioning. FWIW, my family on both sides know him very well. My mother went to school with him, as did my father-in-law, and they stay in regular contact. While it's not the sort of thing you'd tell people, they don't believe that he would be capable of anything like that.

Hey John. He was a friend of my mums family as well!

chief wiggum
20-04-2013, 01:36 PM
personally I'd rather spend my sympathy on the victims, rather than the accused (be they charged/convicted or not)


even if they're completely innocent? and have they're whole lives ruined cos someone erroneously pointed the finger at them?

mekon
20-04-2013, 01:44 PM
Who next? The Goodies?

keys
20-04-2013, 01:49 PM
Not enough facts to comment on .

AliastheJester
20-04-2013, 01:52 PM
We don't even know if there is a victim making an accusation. He has not yet been charged, let alone convicted.
Operation Yewtree seems to be questioning/arresting a lot of people, maybe the cops are trying to make up for years of looking the other way.

Barfridge
20-04-2013, 01:58 PM
even if they're completely innocent? and have they're whole lives ruined cos someone erroneously pointed the finger at them?

to me that's secondary to the kids who 100% have had their whole lives hugely impacted, kids sentenced to a life of misplaced guilt and torment.

There's no maybes, no benefit of the doubt for them, the damage is already done

edit: I'd just like to add that I'm in no way carrying a pitchfork against Rolf Harris. He hasn't been charged with anything, and if that does eventuate he is entitled to defend himself in court. My point is more about supporting the victims

Flakey
20-04-2013, 02:05 PM
to me that's secondary to the kids who 100% have had their whole lives hugely impacted, kids sentenced to a life of misplaced guilt and torment.

There's no maybes, no benefit of the doubt for them, the damage is already done

Dragging a person's name and character through the mud on the 'possibility' of guilt is worse as it will destroy them (guilty or not) and it doesn't resolve the issue or bring the perpetrator(s) to justice. The victims have still been wronged and now are being insulted by a legal system more interested in results than justice. :mad:

agrid
20-04-2013, 02:08 PM
What next? People from "Collectors", "Hey Dad" or "Its Knockout" will probably turn out to be perverts.

IGS
20-04-2013, 02:57 PM
If a man looks like a peedo, he probably is !

Sprint
20-04-2013, 03:25 PM
If a man looks like a peedo, he probably is !

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_01/rolfDM_468x645.jpg

S.

BenG
20-04-2013, 03:35 PM
Dragging a person's name and character through the mud on the 'possibility' of guilt is worse as it will destroy them (guilty or not) and it doesn't resolve the issue or bring the perpetrator(s) to justice. The victims have still been wronged and now are being insulted by a legal system more interested in results than justice. :mad:

Are you honestly saying that being falsly accused of a crime is worse than being raped as a child??

kapyong
20-04-2013, 07:46 PM
I don't think he is saying that at all however being accused of raping a child when, later. it is proved you didn't and are totally innocent would still be very devastating to the accused.

At this stage we do not know what is going on with Rolf however I am quite certain there is an ill directed witch hunt in progress in the UK which is having a devastating effect on those accused BEFORE any charges are laid and I will bet that we see few if no charges at all from this. We donít even know if a complaint was made against Rolf, he and other high profile BBC entertainers from that period are under the microscope, under what basis? Until charges are laid we wonít be told a thing except that high profile members of the community are being questioned.

Remember they are not being placed in the same boat as Saville but this follow on is what is occurring because of that investigation. The authorities either need to put up or shut up and not let this drag on for many months. And if no charges are laid make complete and full apologies to these people.

Desmo
20-04-2013, 07:56 PM
to me that's secondary to the kids who 100% have had their whole lives hugely impacted, kids sentenced to a life of misplaced guilt and torment.

There's no maybes, no benefit of the doubt for them, the damage is already done

edit: I'd just like to add that I'm in no way carrying a pitchfork against Rolf Harris. He hasn't been charged with anything, and if that does eventuate he is entitled to defend himself in court. My point is more about supporting the victims

These kids lives have been ruined and one would hope things are being put in place to at least alleviate that somewhat.
But to stand by and watch an innocent person's life get ruined and then say "fuck him, let's give sympathy to those kids".
Sorry, don't get it.

Flakey
20-04-2013, 08:10 PM
Are you honestly saying that being falsly accused of a crime is worse than being raped as a child??

Absolutely not.

What I'm saying is nothing good comes of all of us expressing our opinions people's guilt and character when only a very small number of people actually know them personally.

The reality is there is no 'innocent until proven guilty' in our system and the mere accusation of a crime is enough to tarnish a person's future, especially with the ease of mass communication and the inference that everything people say is fact.

darkfibre
20-04-2013, 08:15 PM
These kids lives have been ruined and one would hope things are being put in place to at least alleviate that somewhat.
But to stand by and watch an innocent person's life get ruined and then say "fuck him, let's give sympathy to those kids".
Sorry, don't get it.

I was just trying to find these exact words.

Thanks.

D'Artagnan
20-04-2013, 08:42 PM
It sure says something about the shock & disbelief of Rolf's arrest that the entire Aussie media took weeks to publish the event. Anyone else and they would have been all over it.

Not often I agree with our media but well done for NOT publishing his name until the police released it, unlike the UK tabloids.


So sad that perhaps the most iconic Australian of all time is charged with kiddy fiddling. We all thought that Rolf represented all that was good about Aussies, instead it looks like it's all that's evil in humans... Let's get all excited when he's convicted, yeah?


You were us Rolf. We all identified with you and we were proud that the rest of the world did too...

This is totally fucked. Assume he's guilty? No sympathy for the guilty, but's let's wait until then before sending the lynching squad in...

truewheel
20-04-2013, 11:47 PM
My apologies D'Artagnan & everyone - Rolf has been arrested and released on bail but not yet charged pending further investigations.

If I may plead mitigating circumstances, I have been lying in a hospital bed with a self serve morphine pump in my hand for the last 16 hours...

Crobbo
21-04-2013, 12:25 AM
My apologies D'Artagnan & everyone - Rolf has been arrested and released on bail but not yet charged pending further investigations.

If I may plead mitigating circumstances, I have been lying in a hospital bed with a self serve morphine pump in my hand for the last 16 hours...

You don't seem to be administering it very well, press that button more :)

andymac
21-04-2013, 01:37 AM
If I may plead mitigating circumstances, I have been lying in a hospital bed with a self serve morphine pump in my hand for the last 16 hours...

Fuck, if you're not going to use it hook a brother up man!

devolved
21-04-2013, 01:41 AM
He was named on a local TV show 2 weeks before The Sun named him.

Phildo
21-04-2013, 06:48 AM
I have been lying in a hospital bed with a self serve morphine pump in my hand for the last 16 hours...
Ok, so we all have our pet names for our penises... but "morphine pump"???

;)

truewheel
21-04-2013, 09:07 AM
You don't seem to be administering it very well, press that button more :)


Fuck, if you're not going to use it hook a brother up man!


Ok, so we all have our pet names for our penises... but "morphine pump"???

;)

Thank you PSB brothers, I laughed til it hurt, then pressed the button until it didn't. And furthermoer, gerfxxzt blumpgoner zzzzzzzzz.....

shan
21-04-2013, 10:37 AM
Tie me kangaroo down will never ave the same meaning to me

Tim the PM
21-04-2013, 10:46 AM
Tie me kangaroo down will never ave the same meaning to me

Apparently there is some damning evidence that he did 2 little boys

Radtuono
21-04-2013, 10:59 AM
I think there interviewing a kangaroo at the moment. Hope its not Skippy.
Tie me kangaroo down will never ave the same meaning to me

tteksep
21-04-2013, 11:00 AM
Tim the pool man... I hope everyone gets that. Showing my age now eh?

chief wiggum
21-04-2013, 11:21 AM
Not enough facts to comment on .

does anyone else find it odd that rharris posted this? c'mon man, what's your first name, not rolf by any chance? i'm sure you know ALL the facts :confused:

keys
21-04-2013, 12:02 PM
Not Rolf mate

Just like to keep open mind on this sort of thing till I see some sort of facts other than a report from a uk rag

mekon
21-04-2013, 04:21 PM
I think there interviewing a kangaroo at the moment. Hope its not Skippy.

Well he stands no chance in a Kangaroo Court. He won't have a leg to stand on, his accomplice Jake the Peg however...

chew
21-04-2013, 04:29 PM
Apparently there is some damning evidence that he did 2 little boys

And there were toys and horses involved.

agrid
21-04-2013, 05:12 PM
And there were toys and horses involved.

They even played gaily.

Old frt
21-04-2013, 05:34 PM
They even played gaily.

For the Warriors no less, and they broke the one dick per, err mount rule.

Phildo
21-04-2013, 06:58 PM
Rolf will be hopping mad if he's innocent.

Irish
21-04-2013, 07:30 PM
No matter even if he is found not guilty his life (what remains of it) is now going to be in tatters...

Old frt
21-04-2013, 07:34 PM
No matter even if he is found not guilty his life (what remains of it) is now going to be in tatters...

* "taters"

agrid
21-04-2013, 07:36 PM
Rolf will be fine, he's got an extra leg. Unlike Pistorius who doesnít have a leg to stand on.

Barfridge
21-04-2013, 08:59 PM
* "taters"

Your sense of humour is pretty mashed.

Old frt
21-04-2013, 09:06 PM
Your sense of humour is pretty mashed.

Sorry, my sense of humour is how I deal with life when the chips are down. :(

luzi
22-04-2013, 08:16 AM
Who next? The Goodies?

What about rod hull , he's had his hand up a birds arse for years

Arwon
22-04-2013, 08:49 AM
What about rod hull , he's had his hand up a birds arse for years

thats still legal in most countries except some states of america.

mekon
22-04-2013, 03:29 PM
What about rod hull , he's had his hand up a birds arse for years

I bet when the sex crimes squad knock at his door it's all, "There's somebody at the door! There's somebody at the door!"

Hewzie
22-04-2013, 04:56 PM
With all the righteous ones proclaiming innocence until guilty....makes me wonder why this topic even got posted. A bloke in England was questioned.........any more facts?

Desmo
23-04-2013, 06:36 PM
With all the righteous ones proclaiming innocence until guilty..

Who's being righteous where now? Do you have an issue with due process and innocence until proven guilty?

AliastheJester
23-04-2013, 06:44 PM
With all the righteous ones proclaiming innocence until guilty....makes me wonder why this topic even got posted. A bloke in England was questioned.........any more facts?

That's precisely why we are discussing the topic, he was named without conviction. We can do away with due process and presumption of innocence if you like, run Australia's judicial system like Guantanamo.

Hamster
23-04-2013, 07:01 PM
What about rod hull , he's had his hand up a birds arse for years

Well, not for about 14 years. He died in 1999.

Old frt
23-04-2013, 07:07 PM
Well, not for about 14 years. He died in 1999.

RIP Emu,

How's Rod Going?

Hamster
23-04-2013, 07:15 PM
RIP Emu,

I guess having a hand up your arse would cause a bit of tearing.

Mr Bean
23-04-2013, 07:26 PM
any more facts?

Never let the facts get in the way of a PSB thread.

Old frt
23-04-2013, 08:00 PM
If Joe Public had been identified by the media after having been arrested and interviewed by the police without charge, how many would immediately condemn him and how many would leap to his defence?

I seriously doubt Rolf Harris is guilty of anything sordid, and I would be mortified if he is but by the same token, I don't see how a much loved celebrity should be afforded discretion when the man in the street gets none.

D'Artagnan
24-04-2013, 01:49 AM
I don't see how a much loved celebrity should be afforded discretion when the man in the street gets none.

IMHO most pedo reports on the news for Joe Public are after they are charged and are in the dock or leaving, or if there's a 'hunt' on to find a known pedo/sex offender. For example if you do a search for "Perth Sexual Assault" nearly all returns are news stories on those persons charged with or convicted of the offence.

If you search most news services for "Sexual Assault" stories, you find nearly all of the stories are after charges are laid.

No one argues that Rolf Harris, or anyone else, can be named once the charges or arrest is made, but in this case he was named before either of those things happened and if he was never charged, the stigma would still stick.

edit: Actually I just checked and he was arrested and released on bail when the story first broke. So I apologise for my misinformation.

kapyong
24-04-2013, 06:50 AM
Yes, he was arrested and released on bail however he has still not been charged with any offence.

fredie
24-04-2013, 09:37 PM
tie me kangaroo down sport :o

agrid
06-08-2013, 12:36 PM
Maybe there were three little boys.

USTRALIAN entertainer Rolf Harris has been re-arrested by British police on further allegations of sexual offences.

Harris, 83, was first arrested in late March by officers from Operation Yewtree, established following the Jimmy Savile scandal.

He was bailed until May and then again until early August "pending further inquiries".

Now police say new allegations against Harris have come to light.

- See more at: No Cookies | Perth Now (http://www.perthnow.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/rolf-harris-arrested-in-britain-on-new-allegations-of-sexual-offences/story-fnhiycb5-1226691762168#sthash.IkTFzLAV.dpuf)

BusaSteve
06-08-2013, 03:43 PM
Wow! better condenm him then since the Sun named him...they have a stellar record of being concise and accurate. I hope if he is found innocent he sue's the Sun and its owners to a standstill.

mstriumph
06-08-2013, 07:52 PM
they must at least THINK they have something to keep detaining him?
it can't be much since they haven't charged him.

if he did/if he didn't, i wish they'd either piss or get off the pot as this is becoming suspiciously like a witch hunt

Ausinanas
06-08-2013, 08:00 PM
I Bet the Prison Christmas Panto is gonna be awesome this year " saville,Harris ,Davidson, Stu Hall, Glitter, the list of Pervs is getting longer and longer ( like their stretch's with a bit of luck..)

luzi
06-08-2013, 08:26 PM
I Bet the Prison Christmas Panto is gonna be awesome this year " saville,Harris ,Davidson, Stu Hall, Glitter, the list of Pervs is getting longer and longer ( like their stretch's with a bit of luck..)

i wonder if his extra leg will get in the way of picking up the soap ???? :(:(

kapyong
06-08-2013, 08:35 PM
I Bet the Prison Christmas Panto is gonna be awesome this year " saville,Harris ,Davidson, Stu Hall, Glitter, the list of Pervs is getting longer and longer ( like their stretch's with a bit of luck..)

Who handed you all the facts to deem these guys guilty?

OK. I'll give you some because they have been charged and been convicted however IMHO I think that Scotland Yard may end up with egg on it's face over some of this business.

Ausinanas
06-08-2013, 08:44 PM
Who handed you all the facts to deem these guys guilty?

OK. I'll give you some because they have been charged and been convicted however IMHO I think that Scotland Yard may end up with egg on it's face over some of this business.

No Smoke without fire ... and the fact Stu Hall admitted it

chew
06-08-2013, 08:53 PM
No Smoke without fire ...

That's what they said about Lindy Chamberlain.

Desmo
06-08-2013, 08:58 PM
No Smoke without fire

What tripe.

Ausinanas
06-08-2013, 09:01 PM
What tripe.

So what you think they are all innocent.?

Desmo
06-08-2013, 09:05 PM
So what you think they are all innocent.?

I was referring to your comment in general, not necessarily the question at hand but I do think that it is now a witch hunt.

RRossi
06-08-2013, 09:09 PM
There just throwing things at him hoping somthing will stick, the truth will eventualy come fourth

RR

mekon
06-08-2013, 09:09 PM
I Bet the Prison Christmas Panto is gonna be awesome this year " saville,Harris ,Davidson, Stu Hall, Glitter, the list of Pervs is getting longer and longer ( like their stretch's with a bit of luck..)

Fuck as creepy as Saville was, I think it ould be really creepy to see him in a prison Panto. He'd fucking smell a bit.

"Behind You!"

motoguzzles
06-08-2013, 09:27 PM
I remember soon after that Azaria incident, a truck rammed a pub up there. The driver was found innocent in the face a damning evidence.....they ended up finding DINGO prints on the steering wheel!!
That's what they said about Lindy Chamberlain.

Old frt
06-08-2013, 09:29 PM
No Smoke without fire ... and the fact Stu Hall admitted it


Just consider this.

He would have met thousands of people throughout his career.

One or two of them might just see the opportunity to make a fast quid out of the tabloids by suddenly remembering the time he put an arm round their shoulder for a photograph.

All of a sudden that becomes exaggerated into inappropriate touching and of course the police need to look into any allegations given the public outcry over Saville and others with less than innocent intentions..

As stated, he has not been charged, merely interviewed.

- - - Updated - - -


No Smoke without fire ... and the fact Stu Hall admitted it


Just consider this.

He would have met thousands of people throughout his career.

One or two of them might just see the opportunity to make a fast quid out of the tabloids by suddenly remembering the time he put an arm round their shoulder for a photograph.

All of a sudden that becomes exaggerated into inappropriate touching and of course the police need to look into any allegations given the public outcry over Saville and others with less than innocent intentions..

As stated, he has not been charged, merely interviewed.

motoguzzles
06-08-2013, 09:30 PM
Rolf is innocent....he promised NEVER to suck another kiddie pop after he finished with me!!

agrid
06-08-2013, 09:36 PM
Who handed you all the facts to deem these guys guilty?

OK. I'll give you some because they have been charged and been convicted however IMHO I think that Scotland Yard may end up with egg on it's face over some of this business.

Well I think Gary Glitter is pretty much a done deal, or do you think he was set up?

kapyong
06-08-2013, 09:53 PM
Well I think Gary Glitter is pretty much a done deal, or do you think he was set up?

Ol Gazza was thrown out of Thailand but I think that was for his 70's numbers, particurlarly this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi7ds7Lmmrk

Jokes, just jokes.....

Look, I am saying that all these guys are clean and some have already rolled over but Scotter's is shrowing shit all over the place and I do hope that some of it comes flying back in their face. I've liked Rolf since I was a kid and I really just want to don't want to believe he could have been up to no good.

BenG
07-08-2013, 12:15 AM
Well I think Gary Glitter is pretty much a done deal, or do you think he was set up?

Glitter has been found guilty, albeit in Vietnam where the justice system is a little less robust than some places. Hill was found guilty in the UK, so yes, he probably is...

Harris, Saville and Davidson have not been found guilty anywhere of anything.

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of the criminal justice system of any civilised country, and frankly, I wouldn't have it any other way. Until these people have had their day in court, and been found guilty by a jury of their peers, labeling them as "pervs" and assuming their guilt without actually having a shred of evidence to base that on is a touch over the top, don't you think?

truewheel
07-08-2013, 12:33 AM
So in Saville's case death absolves his guilt despite hundreds of statements to the contrary?

Not guilty can be two things - innocence or guilt unproven.

agrid
07-08-2013, 12:36 PM
Glitter has been found guilty, albeit in Vietnam where the justice system is a little less robust than some places. Hill was found guilty in the UK, so yes, he probably is...

Harris, Saville and Davidson have not been found guilty anywhere of anything.

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of the criminal justice system of any civilised country, and frankly, I wouldn't have it any other way. Until these people have had their day in court, and been found guilty by a jury of their peers, labeling them as "pervs" and assuming their guilt without actually having a shred of evidence to base that on is a touch over the top, don't you think?

I agree, innocent until proven guilty, Rolf has been arrested so that the courts can decide on his guilt or innocence.

If we get called up for jury duty we become part of the case, otherwise open discussion is fine and what we say on some motorcycling forum is irrelevant.

kapyong
07-08-2013, 12:38 PM
I agree, innocent until proven guilty, Rolf has been arrested so that the courts can decide on his guilt or innocence.

If we get called up for jury duty we become part of the case, otherwise open discussion is fine and what we say on some motorcycling forum is irrelevant.

Rolf has not been charged with any offences as yet.

agrid
07-08-2013, 12:50 PM
Rolf has not been charged with any offences as yet.

Exactly, he's just been arrested.

MADOGA
07-08-2013, 12:56 PM
Rolf has not been charged with any offences as yet.

really hoping he wont be either.
A person/character i have looked upto from childhood
if it turns out he is dirty it says very little for the quality of the World and those in it,

chew
07-08-2013, 01:21 PM
Is it possible to arrest someone without charging them.

Sort of "What are you arresting me for?" I thought there would have to be a charge?

MADOGA
07-08-2013, 01:27 PM
Is it possible to arrest someone without charging them.

Sort of "What are you arresting me for?" I thought there would have to be a charge?

I think the way it works is
you are arrested under suspicion and then charged. or let go pending further investigation.

Tiger1
07-08-2013, 02:56 PM
Interesting to see several respected commenters defending Saville and Stuart Hall in this thread despite the overwhelming evidence that
condemns them to history as pedophiles. Perhaps Perth is not up on the latest news.

motoguzzles
07-08-2013, 02:59 PM
Looks like they should have been screening the age of the girls in the clip. This would have been around the time radio Stations in Oz wouldn't play some Skyhooks music.

BenG
07-08-2013, 04:05 PM
Interesting to see several respected commenters defending Saville and Stuart Hall in this thread despite the overwhelming evidence that
condemns them to history as pedophiles. Perhaps Perth is not up on the latest news.

I don't see anyone defending anybody, only defending the right to the presumption of innocence until a fair trial by a jury proves otherwise...

Tiger1
07-08-2013, 04:56 PM
I don't see anyone defending anybody, only defending the right to the presumption of innocence until a fair trial by a jury proves otherwise...

Lifted from Wikipedia

"At a pre-trial hearing at Preston Crown Court on 16 April 2013, Hall pleaded guilty to 14 charges of indecent assault involving 13 girls aged between 9 and 17 years old. He was released on bail pending sentencing on 17 June. Reporting restrictions prevented the media from making the news public until 2 May 2013, when the Crown Prosecution Service elected not to pursue the rape charge or three other indecent assault charges relating to the same complainant, who had decided not to give evidence. Hall made a statement through his barrister, issuing an "unreserved apology" to his victims.[3][22][23][24]"

Stuart Hall confessed to these crimes against underage children. He no longer is entitled to any presumption of innocence.

"On 19 October 2012 the Metropolitan Police reported that more than 400 lines of enquiry had been assessed and over 200 potential victims had been identified. By 19 December, eight people had been questioned; the total number of alleged victims was 589, of whom 450 alleged abuse by Savile"

450 people testified against Saville. 450! Your argument is completely invalid.

BenG
07-08-2013, 08:18 PM
Lifted from Wikipedia

"At a pre-trial hearing at Preston Crown Court on 16 April 2013, Hall pleaded guilty to 14 charges of indecent assault involving 13 girls aged between 9 and 17 years old. He was released on bail pending sentencing on 17 June. Reporting restrictions prevented the media from making the news public until 2 May 2013, when the Crown Prosecution Service elected not to pursue the rape charge or three other indecent assault charges relating to the same complainant, who had decided not to give evidence. Hall made a statement through his barrister, issuing an "unreserved apology" to his victims.[3][22][23][24]"

Stuart Hall confessed to these crimes against underage children. He no longer is entitled to any presumption of innocence.

"On 19 October 2012 the Metropolitan Police reported that more than 400 lines of enquiry had been assessed and over 200 potential victims had been identified. By 19 December, eight people had been questioned; the total number of alleged victims was 589, of whom 450 alleged abuse by Savile"

450 people testified against Saville. 450! Your argument is completely invalid.

So one person who this thread isn't about is definitely guilty, one probably is, but didn't get the opportunity for a fair trial since the allegations weren't aired until after his death...

The person who this thread is about hasn't even been charged. Nor has Davidson, and yet they have been labelled as "pervs" in this thread. They're being tried in the court of public opinion and in the media without a shred of evidence, and that is just plain wrong.

Also can you please point out the posts where anyone has defended Saville or Hunt, as per your previous post? As I've just re-read the whole thread and I can't see one...

Desmo
07-08-2013, 10:06 PM
Let it go, bro.
Idiocy and reason are not compatible bed fellows.

thro
07-08-2013, 11:04 PM
I don't see anyone defending anybody, only defending the right to the presumption of innocence until a fair trial by a jury proves otherwise...

Exactly. You'd think that people involved in motorcycling would have a healthy skepticism of the media in all things, not jus traffic violations.

Tiger1
08-08-2013, 05:37 PM
So one person who this thread isn't about is definitely guilty, one probably is, but didn't get the opportunity for a fair trial since the allegations weren't aired until after his death...

The person who this thread is about hasn't even been charged. Nor has Davidson, and yet they have been labelled as "pervs" in this thread. They're being tried in the court of public opinion and in the media without a shred of evidence, and that is just plain wrong.

Also can you please point out the posts where anyone has defended Saville or Hunt, as per your previous post? As I've just re-read the whole thread and I can't see one...

I was deeply affected by alcohol when I made that comment and I still made more sense than you.
The "Presumption of Innocence" theory is exactly that, a theory. I hate to break it to you princess but there is no such thing in this world
as Innocent Before Proven Guilty.
You may bleat all you like about fairness and due process but the fact remains that Rolf Harris has been questioned over allegations of child sex abuse, twice.
My point is, Rolf Harris has some serious explaining to do, because no one turns up on your doorstep forty years down the track without serious proof.

keys
08-08-2013, 06:12 PM
I was deeply affected by alcohol when I made that comment and I still made more sense than you.
The "Presumption of Innocence" theory is exactly that, a theory. I hate to break it to you princess but there is no such thing in this world
as Innocent Before Proven Guilty.
You may bleat all you like about fairness and due process but the fact remains that Rolf Harris has been questioned over allegations of child sex abuse, twice.
My point is, Rolf Harris has some serious explaining to do, because no one turns up on your doorstep forty years down the track without serious proof.

I seen some silly posts on PSB But yours is a winner :(

Tiger1
08-08-2013, 06:14 PM
I seen some silly posts on PSB But yours is a winner :(

So says username rharris

Old frt
08-08-2013, 06:20 PM
My point is, Rolf Harris has some serious explaining to do, because no one turns up on your doorstep forty years down the track without serious proof.

If they had 'serious proof' wouldn't you expect them to lay serious charges?
As yet, no charges have been laid.

Tiger1
08-08-2013, 06:32 PM
If they had 'serious proof' wouldn't you expect them to lay serious charges?
As yet, no charges have been laid.

Yeah, they said the same thing about Micheal Jackson. Wake up sunshine

thro
08-08-2013, 06:41 PM
I was deeply affected by alcohol when I made that comment and I still made more sense than you.
The "Presumption of Innocence" theory is exactly that, a theory. I hate to break it to you princess but there is no such thing in this world
as Innocent Before Proven Guilty.
You may bleat all you like about fairness and due process but the fact remains that Rolf Harris has been questioned over allegations of child sex abuse, twice.
My point is, Rolf Harris has some serious explaining to do, because no one turns up on your doorstep forty years down the track without serious proof.

I hear tiger1 is a kiddy fiddler. He has some explaining to do.


See how baseless and easy that was to do?

truewheel
08-08-2013, 06:49 PM
I hear tiger1 is a kiddy fiddler. He has some explaining to do.


See how baseless and easy that was to do?

Na that's just slander. Take it to the cops. See if they arrest him. Then he'll have some explaining to do.

Tiger1
08-08-2013, 06:52 PM
I hear tiger1 is a kiddy fiddler. He has some explaining to do.


See how baseless and easy that was to do?

I swear that girl had the clitoris of an eighteen year old.

Old frt
08-08-2013, 06:56 PM
Na that's just slander. Take it to the cops. See if they arrest him. Then he'll have some explaining to do.

Slander or not, any such allegation would be investigated, you don't need to be arrested to be interviewed.

keys
08-08-2013, 06:58 PM
I hear tiger1 is a kiddy fiddler. He has some explaining to do.


See how baseless and easy that was to do?
If we all Quote this and search tiger1 on google how long before we can tip off the uk trash rags about tiger1 leader of a kiddy fiddler ring ?

Tiger1
08-08-2013, 07:11 PM
[QUOTE=rharris;2901858]If we all Quote this and search tiger1 on google how long before we can tip off the uk trash rags about tiger1 leader of a kiddy fiddler ring ?[/QUOTE


So says the username rharris

Old frt
08-08-2013, 07:14 PM
[QUOTE=rharris;2901858]If we all Quote this and search tiger1 on google how long before we can tip off the uk trash rags about tiger1 leader of a kiddy fiddler ring ?[/QUOTE


So says the username rharris

You are repeating yourself...

Been drinking again mate?:drinks:

BenG
08-08-2013, 07:29 PM
I was deeply affected by alcohol when I made that comment and I still made more sense than you.
The "Presumption of Innocence" theory is exactly that, a theory. I hate to break it to you princess but there is no such thing in this world
as Innocent Before Proven Guilty.
You may bleat all you like about fairness and due process but the fact remains that Rolf Harris has been questioned over allegations of child sex abuse, twice.
My point is, Rolf Harris has some serious explaining to do, because no one turns up on your doorstep forty years down the track without serious proof.

Um... No it isn't a theory, it's the foundation of the Justice system all over the English speaking world. Perhaps you need to look up what theory means. There very much is a presumption of innocence as that is written in centuries of legislation and case law. As it should be.

As is the requirement that guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which if the police had any chance of, they would have laid charges already.

Whilst I have no doubt that some people named in Yewtree have committed terrible offences, all of them deserve the right to a fair trial. I also suspect that in operation Yewtree there is a lot of bandwagon jumpers thinking that if they accuse a celebrity of sex crimes, they might get a 7-figure payout.

William Blackstone wrote in 1470 in his Commentaries on the Laws of England "All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer", a formulation which has been echoed before and since by eminent thinkers both inside and outside the legal profession. And one with which I wholeheartedly agree.

You, on the other hand, side with those that say "It is better that 10 innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape." Those people are Pol Pot, dictator and overseer of the worst genocide since the Holocaust, Otto von Bismark, warmonger who invaded most of Europe at various points during the 1860s and 1870s, and Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Soviet State Police, who would execute people without trial for all manner of dubious "offences".

I know which group of men I would sooner be associated with.


Yeah, they said the same thing about Micheal Jackson. Wake up sunshine

Accused twice, never proven, more than likely little more than extortion attempts on an easy target.


By the way, when you resort to name calling, it is a sure sign of a weak argument...

Desmo
08-08-2013, 07:34 PM
Yeah, they said the same thing about Micheal Jackson. Wake up sunshine

Michael Jackson wasn't a kiddy fiddler, he was a kid who never grew up.
The allegations laid against him, although serious for a "normal" human being, I believe had no foundation in his case.

Tiger1
08-08-2013, 07:38 PM
Um... No it isn't a theory, it's the foundation of the Justice system all over the English speaking world. Perhaps you need to look up what theory means. There very much is a presumption of innocence as that is written in centuries of legislation and case law. As it should be.

As is the requirement that guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which if the police had any chance of, they would have laid charges already.

Whilst I have no doubt that some people named in Yewtree have committed terrible offences, all of them deserve the right to a fair trial. I also suspect that in operation Yewtree there is a lot of bandwagon jumpers thinking that if they accuse a celebrity of sex crimes, they might get a 7-figure payout.

William Blackstone wrote in 1470 in his Commentaries on the Laws of England "All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer", a formulation which has been echoed before and since by eminent thinkers both inside and outside the legal profession. And one with which I wholeheartedly agree.

You, on the other hand, side with those that say "It is better that 10 innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape." Those people are Pol Pot, dictator and overseer of the worst genocide since the Holocaust, Otto von Bismark, warmonger who invaded most of Europe at various points during the 1860s and 1870s, and Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Soviet State Police, who would execute people without trial for all manner of dubious "offences".

I know which group of men I would sooner be associated with.



Accused twice, never proven, more than likely little more than extortion attempts on an easy target.


By the way, when you resort to name calling, it is a sure sign of a weak argument...

Bahhahhh. Now you are defending Michael Jackson.

Lifted from Wikipedia

"n August 1993, Jackson's home was raided by the police who, according to court documents, found books and photographs in his bedroom featuring young boys with little or no clothing.[139] In Dec 1993, Jackson was strip searched.[140] Jordan Chandler had reportedly given police a description of Jackson's intimate parts, and the strip search revealed that Jordan had correctly claimed Jackson had patchy-coloured buttocks, short pubic hair, and pink and brown marked testicles, but wrongly claimed Jackson was circumcised, and although doctors at the strip search struggled to tell whether Jackson was circumcised[140] his autopsy report confirmed he had not been circumcised and that his foreskin appeared naturally intact and did not appear to have been restored from a circumcision. Reportedly, Jordan had also previously drawn accurate pictures of a dark spot on Jackson's penis only visible when his penis was lifted.[141] This dark spot was corroborated by the sheriff's photographer[142] and the District Attorney in sworn affidavits.[143]"

kapyong
08-08-2013, 07:42 PM
What would you like me to add to any post on Wiki that you can then sprout as fact?

BenG
08-08-2013, 07:43 PM
Bahhahhh. Now you are defending Michael Jackson.

Lifted from Wikipedia

"n August 1993, Jackson's home was raided by the police who, according to court documents, found books and photographs in his bedroom featuring young boys with little or no clothing.[139] In Dec 1993, Jackson was strip searched.[140] Jordan Chandler had reportedly given police a description of Jackson's intimate parts, and the strip search revealed that Jordan had correctly claimed Jackson had patchy-coloured buttocks, short pubic hair, and pink and brown marked testicles, but wrongly claimed Jackson was circumcised, and although doctors at the strip search struggled to tell whether Jackson was circumcised[140] his autopsy report confirmed he had not been circumcised and that his foreskin appeared naturally intact and did not appear to have been restored from a circumcision. Reportedly, Jordan had also previously drawn accurate pictures of a dark spot on Jackson's penis only visible when his penis was lifted.[141] This dark spot was corroborated by the sheriff's photographer[142] and the District Attorney in sworn affidavits.[143]"

Ah Wikipedia, always a reliable font of information... If you actually read my posts, I am defending nobody. I am defending the fundamental right to a presumption of innocence and a fair trial.

Interestingly, from the same Wiki article you selectively quoted:

In the summer of 1993, Jackson was accused of child sexual abuse by a 13-year-old boy named Jordan Chandler and his father, Dr. Evan Chandler, a dentist.[135][136][137] The Chandler family demanded payment from Jackson, and the singer initially refused. Jordan Chandler eventually told the police that Jackson had sexually abused him.[138] Dr. Chandler was tape-recorded discussing his intention to pursue charges, saying, "If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever ... Michael's career will be over". Jordan's mother was, however, adamant that there had been no wrongdoing on Jackson's part.[137]


So tell me, do you honestly believe that the presumption of innocence and the strong burden of proof is a bad thing?

agrid
08-08-2013, 07:55 PM
You guys need to loosen up a bit. This is just PSB, a good place to take the piss out of some celebrity that looks like a kiddy fiddler. If you get called up for jury duty, then that's the time to get serious about considering allegations. I have done jury duty on a child molestation case and took it very seriously, to the point where I wouldn't discuss the case with my wife, despite her interest. For now I'm happy to make "three little boy jokes".

Tiger1
08-08-2013, 08:02 PM
The validity of Wikipedia is often in question due to various people changing facts to suit themselves. However it is important to
highlight the fact that if any information is incorrect on Wikipedia it is quickly noticed and rectified..

Generally speaking anything that is incorrect and liable to the possibility of legal action is quickly brought to the attention of Wikipedia who
have a legal obligation to display information that has a high degree of credibility and/or fact

thro
08-08-2013, 08:13 PM
I am defending nobody. I am defending the fundamental right to a presumption of innocence and a fair trial.

Pretty much.

fact is, no one here was there. no one posting here knows rolf harris personally. i doubt anyone here is even 2-3 degrees of separation away. No one here has seen any of the testimony or any evidence.

We all harp on about media bullshit like perth now.

Yet as soon as media allegations come up regarding a celebrity, the pitchforks come out.

And that shit is retarded.


For all i know, he may well be a rock spider. But I don't know the guy from a bar of soap, and neither, I suspect does anyone here.

Which is why we have a judicial system, to do discovery of facts. Flawed it may be, but i would wager its a fuck sight more reliable than the crap posted here.

truewheel
08-08-2013, 09:57 PM
Slander or not, any such allegation would be investigated, you don't need to be arrested to be interviewed.

Unless you refuse to be interviewed, or by requesting the interview you give the suspect the chance to destroy evidence.

Just saying, not implying either of these are applicable to Rolf. I actually don't know.

Old frt
08-08-2013, 09:59 PM
Unless you refuse to be interviewed.

True, in which case I'd be wondering what else they had to hide.

truewheel
08-08-2013, 10:06 PM
True, in which case I'd be wondering what else they had to hide.

See edit to above while you posted. Back to this - wouldn't most who could afford it just call their lawyer; get advice and if that advice was refuse the interview request, well wouldn't they? Getting a bit what iffy here but I guess I'm saying it's difficult to judge motivation for any of these types of things, either way.

Edit: As far as Rolf goes, it seems there are one of two things going on here:

Either the allegations (and in sexual abuse cases an investigation usually begins with one) are false, in which case the accuser(s) better have deep pockets because an accusation against someone who is wealthy and very high profile will require a very public shaming by the accuser in order to repair the damage to their reputation or,

there is a degree of truth - in which case the courts will decide. If he's found not guilty then I suppose we each make the call if we think he is innocent or his guilt was unproven.

These cases, particularly when many years or even decades have passed since the crime occurred and hence lack physical evidence like DNA often boil down to he said, she said.

That's why I have no problem with the lack of due process in the Saville case.

Hundreds of accusers. He's as guilty as sin.

Fuck the lack of a trial, it's one of the few times as an atheist I've wanted to believe in Hell, and an ironic one at that.

AliastheJester
08-08-2013, 10:40 PM
To my understanding he would have been arrested (but not charged) for the purposes of cautioning him (read his rights) since an accusation has been made which they are investigating. If they wanted to speak to him just because they think he might have seen or heard something (went to a couple of events that Seville was at maybe) then they would have only interviewed him, if they then found that he may have committed a crime they would then arrest and caution him. It turns out I may watch too many English police shows.
Either way at this stage it is just allegations that are being investigated, charges are yet to be laid and the case hasn't been through the courts.

I still think the whole thing should have been kept out of the media until there was a conviction. The people that need to know about it can be kept informed through official channels, they don't need to see it in the press.
A girl I dated in high-school actually ended up being 'outed' by some fuckwit at the newspaper thinking it was a good idea to put a picture of the victim leaving court, it turns out blurring her face wasn't that effective. Luckily only a few people figured it out. The press care a lot more about profits than victims or the public interest.
/rant.

sprung
09-08-2013, 12:34 AM
What would you like me to add to any post on Wiki that you can then sprout as fact?

Unfortunately there is no World's Most Awesome Motorcyclists page on Wikipedia, for you to include me in the top 10 list. I could do with a promotion of a couple places higher.

Speed Dealer
09-08-2013, 01:18 AM
When the Police bring someone in for questioning, it means they've either got fuck all, or at best a patchy case and they're looking for the suspect to implicate themselves. If they had enough evidence they would have charged him by now.



It sure says something about the shock & disbelief of Rolf's arrest that the entire Aussie media took weeks to publish the event. Anyone else and they would have been all over it.

So sad that perhaps the most iconic Australian of all time is charged with kiddy fiddling. We all thought that Rolf represented all that was good about Aussies, instead it looks like it's all that's evil in humans...

*sigh* What is the world coming to? Who's next? Skippy? B1 & B2?

You were us Rolf. We all identified with you and we were proud that the rest of the world did too...

This is totally fucked.

http://oi41.tinypic.com/2rpagzt.jpg

truewheel
09-08-2013, 02:37 AM
Which, Speed Dealer - these ones a bit later on in the thread?


My apologies D'Artagnan & everyone - Rolf has been arrested and released on bail but not yet charged pending further investigations.

If I may plead mitigating circumstances, I have been lying in a hospital bed with a self serve morphine pump in my hand for the last 16 hours...

Cut an unwell drug fucked bro a little slack?

Emily
09-08-2013, 09:25 AM
Rolf was 'axed' as host of Rolf's Animal Clinic show, due to his re-arrest: Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/rolf-harris-axed-from-popular-uk-tv-show-amid-re-arrest/story-e6frg6nf-1226693653913)

Tiger1
29-08-2013, 07:46 PM
Creepy old cunt

BREAKING NEWS: Rolf Harris to be charged with nine counts of indecent assault and four counts of making indecent images of a child | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2405397/BREAKING-NEWS-Rolf-Harris-charged-counts-indecent-assault-counts-making-indecent-images-child.html)

agrid
29-08-2013, 07:49 PM
So it was Two Little Girls...

fredie
29-08-2013, 07:52 PM
Has he actually been charged? The articles I've read state he's been taken into custody but no mention of an official charge.
yes tonight charged

BenG
29-08-2013, 08:05 PM
Alleged creepy old cunt

BREAKING NEWS: Rolf Harris to be charged with nine counts of indecent assault and four counts of making indecent images of a child | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2405397/BREAKING-NEWS-Rolf-Harris-charged-counts-indecent-assault-counts-making-indecent-images-child.html)

Fixed that one for you.

Desmo
29-08-2013, 08:07 PM
Rolf Harris charged with nine counts of indecent assault and four counts of making indecent images of a child - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-29/rolf-harris-charged-with-nine-counts-of-indecent-assault-and-fo/4923596)

thro
29-08-2013, 08:39 PM
Creepy old cunt

BREAKING NEWS: Rolf Harris to be charged with nine counts of indecent assault and four counts of making indecent images of a child | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2405397/BREAKING-NEWS-Rolf-Harris-charged-counts-indecent-assault-counts-making-indecent-images-child.html)

Charged != found guilty yet

I can charge you with raping my dog, and until it goes to court and the judicial process finds you innocent or guilty there's nothing pinned on you.

truewheel
29-08-2013, 08:41 PM
4 charges of "making an indecent image" in 2012???

What the hell, surely he didn't paint kiddy porn.

If so, that's as sick as fuck.

Allegedly.

Desmo
29-08-2013, 08:45 PM
4 charges of "making an indecent image" in 2012???

What the hell, surely he didn't paint kiddy porn.

If so, that's as sick as fuck.

Alledgedly.

You can make an image with a camera.

truewheel
29-08-2013, 09:01 PM
You can make an image with a camera.

I suppose, but the charge worded that way I haven't heard of before. I thought sickos taping phones to shoes and taking upskirts etc are charged under indecent assault.

I was thinking making an image was different to taking an image (photo).

Guess we'll know soon enough.

filbert
29-08-2013, 09:06 PM
Making an image also differs from taking an image if it's arranged rather than captured.

E.g. arranging poses etc rather than photographing private activity.

thro
29-08-2013, 09:24 PM
4 charges of "making an indecent image" in 2012???

What the hell, surely he didn't paint kiddy porn.

If so, that's as sick as fuck.

Allegedly.

You realise that "making an indecent image" by law includes downloading a picture off the internet. Whether it is accidentally or not.


I'm not saying the guy is innocent, but again we're the first to bitch about the media when its about us.

kapyong
29-08-2013, 09:50 PM
A drawn stick figure with a penis and writing saying " I am six years old" is enough to get you on that charge.

GreenMeanie
29-08-2013, 09:53 PM
Is it a little to early to start touring primary schools with my Rolf Harris tribute band?

truewheel
29-08-2013, 10:30 PM
You realise that "making an indecent image" by law includes downloading a picture off the internet. Whether it is accidentally or not.


I'm not saying the guy is innocent, but again we're the first to bitch about the media when its about us.

I think downloading is charged under "possession of child pornography". The wording might be different for Rolf because the charges are under UK law, not Aussie.

I know in this thread there has been plenty of comments about the presumption of innocence - my 2c is that yep, absolutely in a court of law there should be a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

However, in the court of public opinion there is discussion/conjecture/debate about every celebrities innocence or guilt - before, during & after charges have been laid, heard & the verdict decided upon.

Rolf being an Aussie icon should not stifle views on whats happening to him being aired here or anywhere else for that matter.

Being a Kiwi, perhaps I don't fully grasp what it means to Aussies for such a beloved national icon to be investigated, arrested and now charged for these types of crimes.

If it had been anyone else but Rolf would the entire nations media outlets have refused to run the story for weeks following his first arrest? Explaining that by presumption of innocence seems too generous to the media, especially the Herald Suns & Current Affairs types who thrive on sensationalism.

I think the root of this is more likely a collective national shame and/or disbelief.

Rolf Harris? He's the guy you (used to) think of as a true, decent, likable Aussie bloke - born in Bassendean and done good. Made the country proud, made you all proud. A living treasure.

Now that might all become a sham and a lie, and I find the idea of that pretty sad.

I'm not being a Kiwi having a go at Australia or Australians here. I feel the same way about Rolf.

And if he's found guilty I'll feel betrayed by him.

agrid
29-08-2013, 10:37 PM
I'm so ashamed ... I went to the same school as him.

thro
29-08-2013, 10:48 PM
I think downloading is charged under "possession of child pornography". The wording might be different for Rolf because the charges are under UK law, not Aussie..

In one of the linked articles it mentioned the offence as potentially including downloading of such material falling under "creation".


Btw: i'm not an aussie and don't particularly care for rolf harris at all.

I'm playing devils advocate here, and also pointing out the hypocrisy shown by members of this forum :)

AliastheJester
29-08-2013, 10:50 PM
If it had been anyone else but Rolf would the entire nations media outlets have refused to run the story for weeks following his first arrest? Explaining that by presumption of innocence seems too generous to the media, especially the Herald Suns & Current Affairs types who thrive on sensationalism.

The story should not have been run, and it still should not be run. Any reporting on these issues should be after a conviction, and even then it should be limited. The sensationalist reporting that the media does on issues like this is not in the public interests and certainly doesn't help the victims.

GreenMeanie
29-08-2013, 10:51 PM
I'm so ashamed ... I went to the same school as him.

Hmmm! A partner in crime by association. That Bassendean School will be on the list now!

mstriumph
29-08-2013, 11:04 PM
sad

agrid
29-08-2013, 11:11 PM
Hmmm! A partner in crime by association. That Bassendean School will be on the list now!

No, Perth Modern School. I suppose going to the same school as a charged pedophile is not quite as bad as going to the same school as Bob Hawke.

GreenMeanie
29-08-2013, 11:13 PM
No, Perth Modern School. I suppose going to the same school as a charged pedophile is not quite as bad as going to the same school as Bob Hawke.


:lol:


I suppose Rolf's picture in the assembly hall will be discretely removed. The year books edited and anyone mentioning his name will be expelled.

truewheel
29-08-2013, 11:21 PM
The story should not have been run, and it still should not be run. Any reporting on these issues should be after a conviction, and even then it should be limited. The sensationalist reporting that the media does on issues like this is not in the public interests and certainly doesn't help the victims.

What do you mean by "these issues"? Any type of sexual misconduct charges should have full name suppression until convicted?

I'm not sure - censorship vs freedom of press is a tricky issue for me as it's hardly ever black & white. I can agree in principle with freedom of press but can also find plenty of instances where censorship seems justified.

In Rolf's case, I don't think the reporting (so far in Australia) has been that sensationalist; more matter of fact.

By way of comparison I'm thinking about the furore that blew up with Michael Jackson. At the time, that seemed like utter media saturation of the worst kind. Rolf seems to be under reported - it's like nobody wants to believe it might be true.

I sure don't.

AliastheJester
29-08-2013, 11:57 PM
I know of cases where full supression was used by the court, the victims were better off for it. Names were suppressed because anyone with a clue of what went on could figure out who the victims were. The down side in that particular case was the media was allowed to report that it was a primary school principle involved, so every other principle was suspected by the public in Bunbury. As I mentioned on page 6, my ex-girlfriend found her picture in the paper and was recognised by others, not much of an experience for a 14 year old, and that's after she had had to give evidence by video conference because she couldn't face giving evidence in the courtroom.
If it wasn't Rolf Harris, would we be hearing about someones indecent dealing with some under 16s in the 1980's in the UK.

IMO the media shouldn't be detailing who is accused in any case until they are convicted, not just in sexual cases. If they are innocent they get their name dragged through the mud, and even if they are guilty we gain nothing by knowing who it is that has been accused. All the media needs to do is report on the case and state that someone has been charged, the public interest goes no further until there has been a conviction. If it is actually important to you, you can go sit in the court room.
Unless there are allegations of misconduct or corruption, I personally think the judiciary should be able to operate outside of media interferrence. The media circus surrounding Jackson are why it is so important that we have as many restrictions on commenting on ongoing cases (sub judice) as we do.
Anyway how can it be a free press if it has all been bought.

Phildo
30-08-2013, 12:53 AM
Looks like the next edition of "Rolf Harris' Greatest Hits" won't include hits of the musical kind.

shmoo
30-08-2013, 03:06 AM
"Tie me kangaroo down, sport" takes on a totally different meaning.

Tiger1
30-08-2013, 07:13 AM
Charged != found guilty yet

I can charge you with raping my dog, and until it goes to court and the judicial process finds you innocent or guilty there's nothing pinned on you.

I was a kid during Rolfs heyday and even then I thought he was a creepy old cunt. This episode just proves that I was
right all those years ago.

The concept of "Innocent Before Proven Guilty" is great...... in theory or if you are stuck in the past.
These days the reality is different.... the moment someone is charged with a crime they are automatically presumed
to be guilty and its up to them to prove their innocence.

This is especially true in the cases of child sex abuse because its so hard to prove. The fact that someone has been charged
it will expected there must be very good evidence to support the allegations.

We can argue about Rolfs innocence and entitlement to due process but I think we all know how this is going to end.

mstriumph
30-08-2013, 08:23 AM
Actually, with the media here automatically claiming as Australian any New Zealanders that have even a sniff of success in the entertainment industry, I'm surprised we aren't already seeing the headlines read "NZ entertainer Rolfe Harris ........" ???

SPman
30-08-2013, 08:36 AM
The concept of "Innocent Before Proven Guilty" is great...... in theory or if you are stuck in the past.
These days the reality is different.... the moment someone is charged with a crime they are automatically presumed
to be guilty and its up to them to prove their innocence.
I thought everyone was guilty regardless these days - it seems to be the authorities view.......

Glenn 74
30-08-2013, 09:07 AM
I was a kid during Rolfs heyday and even then I thought he was a creepy old cunt. This episode just proves that I was
right all those years ago.

The concept of "Innocent Before Proven Guilty" is great...... in theory or if you are stuck in the past.
These days the reality is different.... the moment someone is charged with a crime they are automatically presumed
to be guilty and its up to them to prove their innocence.

This is especially true in the cases of child sex abuse because its so hard to prove. The fact that someone has been charged
it will expected there must be very good evidence to support the allegations.

We can argue about Rolfs innocence and entitlement to due process but I think we all know how this is going to end.

Tend to agree with Tiger1 here.

If you have been charged it is because the state prosecutor and police believe they have some very good reasons and enough supporting evidence with which to charge you and successfully execute their case. Charges of an extremely serious nature such as these are not presented lightly. This is further compounded when the defendant happens to be a wealthy celebrity type that would cause the crown to have quite a lot of public egg on their face and the required resources to take them for all sorts of monetary compensation if proven to be innocent.

Not saying the old where there's smoke there is fire line but....yeah, that motherfucker is guilty.

kapyong
30-08-2013, 09:34 AM
yeah, that motherfucker is guilty

So was Lindy Chamberlain, media hung her out to dry, the public did the same (including me). The courts need to weigh up the evidence and find the party guilty, he doesn't have to prove his innocence.......... think Rayney here.

If one of the victims is the woman who told her story on ACA, it was unbelievable then and if this is the total of evidence in that particular case then I can see Rolf having a win. Even my wife raised her eyebrows at her story and she is quick to hang any pedo out there.

Is Rolf guilty, I don't know, let the court decide.

Glenn 74
30-08-2013, 09:52 AM
yeah, that motherfucker is guilty

So was Lindy Chamberlain, media hung her out to dry, the public did the same (including me). The courts need to weigh up the evidence and find the party guilty, he doesn't have to prove his innocence.......... think Rayney here.

If one of the victims is the woman who told her story on ACA, it was unbelievable then and if this is the total of evidence in that particular case then I can see Rolf having a win. Even my wife raised her eyebrows at her story and she is quick to hang any pedo out there.

Is Rolf guilty, I don't know, let the court decide.

Probably could have quoted my whole post for a more accurate context...

Policing, technology and policy has evolved a hell of a lot since the Lindy Chamberlain days. My money is on the boys from Scotland Yard...

harpo
30-08-2013, 11:01 AM
...pointing out the hypocrisy shown by members of this forum :)

You got that right. These kinds of cases (where the alleged abuser is a high profile member of the community) are really tricky at the best of times. Any attention-seeking random can get caught up in the mass hysteria and start bleating: "me too, me too!" * :bandwagon:

I'm not making a case for his guilt or innocence; just saying how the fuck would any of us (those who weren't there, and don't know Harris personally) have any clue as to the truth of the matter?

"Oi, I already thought he was a seedy salmon back then..." well that's an open-and-shut-case then if ever I heard of one. Makes you wonder why they even bother with charges and a trial?

* this also applies to media reports of UFO sightings and alien abductions :lol:

truewheel
30-08-2013, 11:05 AM
Actually, with the media here automatically claiming as Australian any New Zealanders that have even a sniff of success in the entertainment industry, I'm surprised we aren't already seeing the headlines read "NZ entertainer Rolfe Harris ........" ???

To keep it black and white let's do a straight swap - we'll claim Crowded House as 100% Kiwi and in return yous can have Russell Crowe ;)

Hewzie
30-08-2013, 12:44 PM
I have read most of this thread (sorry, boss) and it has lead to me having several conflicting thoughts. A lot of us want Rolf to be innocent ONLY cos we watched him as we grew up, admiring both his musical and painting talents. He was part of what was wholesome in the 60s and 70s. Plus Australian artists don't do that shit!!!! Not ones from Basso, anyway.
And to name someone before they are convicted.....that should only happen if the public are deemed to be at risk (by not naming & therefore warning others). Is that possible?
Anyway, if he is found guilty then he must pay the price. CRIKEY...what's going on in this world...Hirdy was every Mum's favourite. Makes me wonder if I am the sole honest person left. (if you don't count my 2013 tax return, that is)

chew
30-08-2013, 12:54 PM
Not saying the old where there's smoke there is fire line but....yeah, that motherfucker is guilty.

Shouldn't that be Kiddiefucker?

AZAZL
30-08-2013, 01:17 PM
...

Flamedance
30-08-2013, 01:21 PM
Not saying the old where there's smoke there is fire line but....yeah, that motherfucker is guilty.

So you are happy to cast judgement on a person having only read a few of the more sensationalist headlines in mainstream media? That would be the very same media you whine about when they report ridiculous hoonercycle stories?
There seem to be a lot of people on this forum with the good old pot/kettle issue. Or perhaps it's just tall poppy syndrome.
As the law stands in the uk as well as here it is innocent until proven guilty. At present that means that Rolf is innocent.
Are you jumping on the guilty bandwagon to be a part of the cool kids club? Does his existence offend you in some way? Or is it simply that he is famous and therefore must be evil?

I can only hope to god that if I am ever charged with an offence that people like you are not members of the jury. I'll end up with the death penalty for a jaywalking charge.

Glenn 74
30-08-2013, 01:44 PM
So you are happy to cast judgement on a person having only read a few of the more sensationalist headlines in mainstream media? That would be the very same media you whine about when they report ridiculous hoonercycle stories?
There seem to be a lot of people on this forum with the good old pot/kettle issue. Or perhaps it's just tall poppy syndrome.
As the law stands in the uk as well as here it is innocent until proven guilty. At present that means that Rolf is innocent.
Are you jumping on the guilty bandwagon to be a part of the cool kids club? Does his existence offend you in some way? Or is it simply that he is famous and therefore must be evil?

I can only hope to god that if I am ever charged with an offence that people like you are not members of the jury. I'll end up with the death penalty for a jaywalking charge.

1) what the fuck are you talking about ?. and 2) Yes, you should hope that I am not a member of the jury because you probably would end up with the death penalty for a jaywalking charge. 3) cool kids club ? lol.

Flamedance
30-08-2013, 02:06 PM
Not just directed at you Glenn but at all of the people picking up torches and pitchforks screaming guilty before due process. Your post was just the easiest to quote.
What I am saying is - give him his day in court. Im fairly sure no one on this forum has seen all the evidence from either the prosecutors or from Rolf's defence so don't you think it's a bit childish to proclaim " that mofo is guilty"

Glenn 74
30-08-2013, 02:37 PM
Not just directed at you Glenn but at all of the people picking up torches and pitchforks screaming guilty before due process. Your post was just the easiest to quote.
What I am saying is - give him his day in court. Im fairly sure no one on this forum has seen all the evidence from either the prosecutors or from Rolf's defence so don't you think it's a bit childish to proclaim " that mofo is guilty"

No.

Firstly, excuse me for having an opinion and posting it in this discussion thread. My bad obviously.

Secondly, there was MUCH more to my first AND second post than " that mofo is guilty", but you already know that...

Thirdly, from 8 pages of members posting opinions, yes, no and maybe, You decide to quote my post (which is more reasoned and justified than many others) to raise assumptions and throw insults.

Your post was fucked mate.

BusaSteve
30-08-2013, 02:43 PM
Just remember this... no matter his guilt shit sticks and it is all too easy to make accusations...they all have to be investigated and even if the accusers are found to be a bunch of lying bastards he will no longer be able to practice his art and it will probably end up killing him.So those who think he is guilty before time give yourselves a big pat on the back you have a fifty percent chance you are right....or fifty you're not.

chocky
30-08-2013, 02:48 PM
http://i1206.photobucket.com/albums/bb448/hachiko88/South-Park-rabble-rabble-rabble.jpg (http://s1206.photobucket.com/user/hachiko88/media/South-Park-rabble-rabble-rabble.jpg.html)

hope this aint a double post..been wanting to use this for a while...:)

Glenn 74
30-08-2013, 02:54 PM
Just remember this... no matter his guilt shit sticks and it is all too easy to make accusations...they all have to be investigated and even if the accusers are found to be a bunch of lying bastards he will no longer be able to practice his art and it will probably end up killing him.So those who think he is guilty before time give yourselves a big pat on the back you have a fifty percent chance you are right....or fifty you're not.

The investigations have been done. Very thoroughly by Scotland Yard. Now he has been charged. Because he is probably guilty.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't wish these charges on anyone if untrue, and I hope he is innocent as much as everyone else.

All I'm saying is that when charges this serious are executed by a law enforcement agency such as Scotland Yard (we are not talking some bribe taking bunch of dodgy Indian cops that still use paper cups and string instead of police radios) on someone in the public eye, which could lead to both embarrassment and monetary costs; they are generally based on some very compelling evidence and the defendant probably won't be squeaky clean...

Hoddo
30-08-2013, 03:06 PM
Stuff Rolf, lets have more track days.

Flamedance
30-08-2013, 03:10 PM
No.

Firstly, excuse me for having an opinion and posting it in this discussion thread. My bad obviously.

Secondly, there was MUCH more to my first AND second post than " that mofo is guilty", but you already know that...

Thirdly, from 8 pages of members posting opinions, yes, no and maybe, You decide to quote my post (which is more reasoned and justified than many others) to raise assumptions and throw insults.

Your post was fucked mate.

So it's ok for you to insult someone who is not on the forum and able to defend himself but it's not ok for anyone else to point that out? I didn't single you out intentionally, just being lazy on a tablet and cbf'ed with the hassle of multiple quotes. For that I apologise.

As for guilty/not guilty, I couldn't give a flying fuck either way, he has the right to an unbiased jury. He won't get it because most people have predetermined judgements going in. If he is guilty, he will be punished (appropriately I would hope) if he is not guilty - which has happened multiple times over the years, do you think he will ever be able to resume his life/career as it was prior or to recoup the expense of his defence? That shit sticks dude. Having been falsely accused of a serious crime when I was younger I know personally how that shit sticks to you! All because I covered someone else's shift. Fortunately I'm not famous so the media didn't feed it to the world to pre judge me.

agrid
30-08-2013, 03:14 PM
So you are happy to cast judgement on a person having only read a few of the more sensationalist headlines in mainstream media? That would be the very same media you whine about when they report ridiculous hoonercycle stories?
There seem to be a lot of people on this forum with the good old pot/kettle issue. Or perhaps it's just tall poppy syndrome.
As the law stands in the uk as well as here it is innocent until proven guilty. At present that means that Rolf is innocent.
Are you jumping on the guilty bandwagon to be a part of the cool kids club? Does his existence offend you in some way? Or is it simply that he is famous and therefore must be evil?

I can only hope to god that if I am ever charged with an offence that people like you are not members of the jury. I'll end up with the death penalty for a jaywalking charge.

What a load of crap. Any intelligent person would know to distinguish casual conversation from the great responsibility of jury duty. If I was chosen for jury duty I would take the case very seriously, as I have done before, and consider all the evidence before making my decision. Meanwhile, for the purpose of this casual discussion, I think Rolf is probably a kiddiefiddler.

- - - Updated - - -


So it's ok for you to insult someone who is not on the forum and able to defend himself but it's not ok for anyone else to point that out? I didn't single you out intentionally, just being lazy on a tablet and cbf'ed with the hassle of multiple quotes. For that I apologise.

As for guilty/not guilty, I couldn't give a flying fuck either way, he has the right to an unbiased jury. He won't get it because most people have predetermined judgements going in. If he is guilty, he will be punished (appropriately I would hope) if he is not guilty - which has happened multiple times over the years, do you think he will ever be able to resume his life/career as it was prior or to recoup the expense of his defence? That shit sticks dude. Having been falsely accused of a serious crime when I was younger I know personally how that shit sticks to you! All because I covered someone else's shift. Fortunately I'm not famous so the media didn't feed it to the world to pre judge me.

Yes and the famous are most likely to get off.

Flamedance
30-08-2013, 03:23 PM
What a load of crap. Any intelligent person would know to distinguish casual conversation from the great responsibility of jury duty. If I was chosen for jury duty I would take the case very seriously, as I have done before, and consider all the evidence before making my decision. Meanwhile, for the purpose of this casual discussion, I think Rolf is probably a kiddiefiddler.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes and the famous are most likely to get off.

Well congratulations! You would take it seriously and consider the evidence but "think" he is guilty and that he will get off due to fame. Am I the only one who sees the irony in your statement?

Glenn 74
30-08-2013, 03:26 PM
So it's ok for you to insult someone who is not on the forum and able to defend himself but it's not ok for anyone else to point that out? I didn't single you out intentionally, just being lazy on a tablet and cbf'ed with the hassle of multiple quotes. For that I apologise.

As for guilty/not guilty, I couldn't give a flying fuck either way, he has the right to an unbiased jury. He won't get it because most people have predetermined judgements going in. If he is guilty, he will be punished (appropriately I would hope) if he is not guilty - which has happened multiple times over the years, do you think he will ever be able to resume his life/career as it was prior or to recoup the expense of his defence? That shit sticks dude. Having been falsely accused of a serious crime when I was younger I know personally how that shit sticks to you! All because I covered someone else's shift. Fortunately I'm not famous so the media didn't feed it to the world to pre judge me.

Am I in the right place?

Stop trying to justify your insulting and unfair post with rubbish.

MANY people, places, things have been discussed on this DISCUSSION forum, some comments positive, some negative. Get it. Or does every fucken person, place or thing have to be given a copy of what gets discussed on here and the opportunity to respond and defend themselves?....

I too have been falsely accused of a crime when younger. A sexual based crime. The police INVESTIGATED and found that it was absolute bullshit. DIDN'T charge me, but rather charged the other party with making a false statement to police. So don't assume that I don't know what the fuck I am talking about or that I have no compassion for those that have been falsely accused. During that time I was petrified and couldn't face anyone for fear that they would just assume the worst. One of the worst times of my life.

The fact is that the police have been thoroughly investigating these accusations about Rolf for 3 years now. 3 fucken years. They have presented 13 different charges. Wrong once, maybe. Wrong thirteen times.... I doubt it.

chew
30-08-2013, 03:30 PM
Yes and the famous are most likely to get off.

Tragically more due to good silks and technicalities than reality :(

Taylor
30-08-2013, 03:31 PM
Scotland Yard had their pants pulled down during the Murdoch investigation for an apparently beyond reproach investigation service.
They are the metropolitan police, that's all.

Famous people are accused of lots of things, some of them are true and some are false. Some are designed to get justice and some are designed to smear enough mud to force the famous person to pay them to make it go away.

I'll let you know which one I think this is when I hear how a court finds it to be.

chew
30-08-2013, 03:35 PM
Only those involved will ever know for sure.

The justice system will grind away and reach an outcome. Mostly it works but is as fallible as the humans involved.

Glenn 74
30-08-2013, 03:37 PM
Scotland Yard had their pants pulled down during the Murdoch investigation for an apparently beyond reproach investigation service.
They are the metropolitan police, that's all.

Famous people are accused of lots of things, some of them are true and some are false. Some are designed to get justice and some are designed to smear enough mud to force the famous person to pay them to make it go away.

I'll let you know which one I think this is when I hear how a court finds it to be.

You a bettin man Taylor ? :D

- - - Updated - - -


Well congratulations! You would take it seriously and consider the evidence but "think" he is guilty and that he will get off due to fame. Am I the only one who sees the irony in your statement?

You realise that Agrid is not performing jury duty right now yeah?

Maybe re-read what he posted.

Flamedance
30-08-2013, 03:39 PM
As I said Glenn I apologise for being lazy and not quoting everyone screaming guilty.
So you have been in the same position as I was. Yet you still seem happy to condemn someone else before their day in court. On the other hand, I believe people should keep opinions on these topics to themselves. We have uk members reading this forum, what's to say your argument is more convincing than mine and one of those members is on the jury? If instead of being let off you were charged? How would you feel walking into court knowing the jury has already decided you were guilty?
I wasn't singling you out but that's how you took it and I apologised. But now It seems you're just looking for an excuse to abuse me so you are welcome to take this to pm if you want to continue.

Blazon
30-08-2013, 03:40 PM
Apart from video or photographic evidence, How do you prove sexual abuse from 30 years ago?

Someones word against another. Is that good enough? How many alleged victims are there? Have any of you seen the evidence?
How do we know its not a smear campaign?

There are many assumptions in this thread all based on media reports , speculation and public opinion.
Rolf Harris will need a trial by judge because a trial by jury will convict him on preconceived ideas alone.

chocky
30-08-2013, 03:50 PM
Am I in the right place?

Stop trying to justify your insulting and unfair post with rubbish.



you insulted the indian police..

i'm offended..

nah jokes.. :bunny:

Glenn 74
30-08-2013, 04:01 PM
As I said Glenn I apologise for being lazy and not quoting everyone screaming guilty.
So you have been in the same position as I was. Yet you still seem happy to condemn someone else before their day in court. On the other hand, I believe people should keep opinions on these topics to themselves. We have uk members reading this forum, what's to say your argument is more convincing than mine and one of those members is on the jury? If instead of being let off you were charged? How would you feel walking into court knowing the jury has already decided you were guilty?
I wasn't singling you out but that's how you took it and I apologised. But now It seems you're just looking for an excuse to abuse me so you are welcome to take this to pm if you want to continue.

Dude,

1 - I am not condemning him. I have explained what and why I said what I said many times now. For the purposes of discussion in this discussion thread, it is my opinion that he is probably guilty.

2 - you know that you did more than just be lazy. Be a man. If you are going to apologise, do it properly and I will happily accept it. There is no need to go to PM.

3 - if you believe that people should keep their opinions to themselves about such topics, then close this thread. There is 9 pages of opinions up at the moment.

4 - where have I abused you? It was you who insulted me. Remember...

5 - I never got "let off". I never did anything wrong to be let off from. The police investigated the complaint, found it to be false and therefore didn't charge me with anything. In fact they were very apologetic and gunning for the bitch that made the false accusation. Unlike Rolf, who hs been charged with 13 offences....

You wanted to make your joke about jaywalking and the death penalty and chose me to pick on. Simple as that.

It is what it is and I forgive you, ok?

Handshake, backslap and all good.

:D

- - - Updated - - -


Apart from video or photographic evidence, How do you prove sexual abuse from 30 years ago?

Someones word against another. Is that good enough? How many alleged victims are there? Have any of you seen the evidence?
How do we know its not a smear campaign?

There are many assumptions in this thread all based on media reports , speculation and public opinion.
Rolf Harris will need a trial by judge because a trial by jury will convict him on preconceived ideas alone.

They found dirty pictures of little kids on his computer.

Still feel the same way ?

shmoo
30-08-2013, 04:04 PM
The investigations have been done. Very thoroughly by Scotland Yard. Now he has been charged. Because he is probably guilty.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't wish these charges on anyone if untrue, and I hope he is innocent as much as everyone else.

All I'm saying is that when charges this serious are executed by a law enforcement agency such as Scotland Yard (we are not talking some bribe taking bunch of dodgy Indian cops that still use paper cups and string instead of police radios) on someone in the public eye, which could lead to both embarrassment and monetary costs; they are generally based on some very compelling evidence and the defendant probably won't be squeaky clean...

Thankfully, the justice system doesn't follow your approach of "well the cops have charged him, therefore he's guilty."

Blazon
30-08-2013, 04:08 PM
They found dirty pictures of little kids on his computer.

Still feel the same way ?

They may be pictures he downloaded from the internet. Again you're making assumptions based on biased media reports.

I don't feel anything. He's entitled to a fair trial without fear or favour. And I am disappointed that many on here don't understand the justice system.

Glenn 74
30-08-2013, 04:11 PM
Thankfully, the justice system doesn't follow your approach of "well the cops have charged him, therefore he's guilty."

That's awesome.

Glenn 74
30-08-2013, 04:14 PM
They may be pictures he downloaded from the internet. Again you're making assumptions based on biased media reports.

I don't feel anything. He's entitled to a fair trial without fear or favour. And I am disappointed that many on here don't understand the justice system.

Lol, yeah, downloading dirty pictures of kids off the Internet is illegal dude. It's called accessing child pornography. This is ok with you?

Now please continue to educate me on the mechanics of the justice system.

Blazon
30-08-2013, 04:21 PM
Yeh, kiddie porn is illegal. Thats a separate charge.

Where is the evidence from 30 years ago?

keys
30-08-2013, 04:22 PM
Lol, yeah, downloading dirty pictures of kids off the Internet is illegal dude. It's called accessing child pornography. This is ok with you?

Now please continue to educate me on the mechanics of the justice system.


So you are happy to believe 100% what you read in the trash mags and gutter press ? Why not wait for the court date ?

chew
30-08-2013, 04:27 PM
To clarify, the charges for indecent assault relate to two separate persons from 1980 & 1986 and the making an indecent image were from last year.

Glenn 74
30-08-2013, 04:30 PM
So you are happy to believe 100% what you read in the trash mags and gutter press ? Why not wait for the court date ?

Do I come across as the type of person who reads trah mags and relies on information from he gutter press. Great, thanks for that champ.

I AM waiting for the court date mate.

But someone started this thread on the 20th April. People have been posting opinions in it ever since. About 185 times last count. Thought I might contribute to the discussion as well.

Gee, some of you guys really don't like to consider the opinions of others do you. Especially when it's someone who will not be bullied or bow down to insults and bandwagoning.

rnelson955
30-08-2013, 04:30 PM
I really can't see where either of you have abused the other. You both simply have differing points of view, which you're both entitled to, and can hopefully discuss without getting all bent out of shape over it. Seems to me Flamedance's is that we shouldn't pass judgement on people in these situations without all the facts (which I agree with btw); Glenn is of the opinion that the guy is probably guilty and he should be able to post that opinion anywhere he wants.

Calm down lads. :)

kapyong
30-08-2013, 04:33 PM
They found dirty pictures of little kids on his computer.

Still feel the same way ?

How do you know that?

It has been reported "Four other charges relate to making indecent images of a child between March and July last year."

It doesn't mean pics were found on a computer, it could relate to anything including stick figures depicting youngsters with a stick penis, we just don't know as yet.

chew
30-08-2013, 04:34 PM
Tend to agree with Tiger1 here.

If you have been charged it is because the state prosecutor and police believe they have some very good reasons and enough supporting evidence with which to charge you and successfully execute their case. Charges of an extremely serious nature such as these are not presented lightly. This is further compounded when the defendant happens to be a wealthy celebrity type that would cause the crown to have quite a lot of public egg on their face and the required resources to take them for all sorts of monetary compensation if proven to be innocent.

Not saying the old where there's smoke there is fire line but....yeah, that motherfucker is guilty.

Of course the Police have never charged anyone with a lack of solid evidence, to take the heat off themselves, murky the waters or to draw the fire from another because they are beyond reproach and show no fear or favour.


Dude,

1 - I am not condemning him. I have explained what and why I said what I said many times now. For the purposes of discussion in this discussion thread, it is my opinion that he is probably guilty.

2 - you know that you did more than just be lazy. Be a man. If you are going to apologise, do it properly and I will happily accept it. There is no need to go to PM.

3 - if you believe that people should keep their opinions to themselves about such topics, then close this thread. There is 9 pages of opinions up at the moment.

4 - where have I abused you? It was you who insulted me. Remember...

5 - I never got "let off". I never did anything wrong to be let off from. The police investigated the complaint, found it to be false and therefore didn't charge me with anything. In fact they were very apologetic and gunning for the bitch that made the false accusation. Unlike Rolf, who hs been charged with 13 offences....

You wanted to make your joke about jaywalking and the death penalty and chose me to pick on. Simple as that.

It is what it is and I forgive you, ok?

Handshake, backslap and all good.

:D

- - - Updated - - -



They found dirty pictures of little kids on his computer.

Still feel the same way ?

Highlighted some points I found interesting.

Glenn 74
30-08-2013, 04:39 PM
How do you know that?

It has been reported "Four other charges relate to making indecent images of a child between March and July last year."

It doesn't mean pics were found on a computer, it could relate to anything including stick figures depicting youngsters with a stick penis, we just don't know as yet.

Oh, ok. Sorry I didn't think of it that way. He probably hasn't done anything wrong then.

- - - Updated - - -


Yeh, kiddie porn is illegal. Thats a separate charge.

Where is the evidence from 30 years ago?

Ok, ok.

He's probably guilty of possessing kiddie porn and possibly guilty of molesting kids some 30 years ago. I'm sure the 2 are in no way related and are just one big coincidence.

Blazon
30-08-2013, 04:43 PM
Ok, ok.

He's probably guilty of possessing kiddie porn and possibly guilty of molesting kids some 30 years ago. I'm sure the 2 are in no way related and are just one big coincidence.

I'm happy to wait for due process.

kapyong
30-08-2013, 04:43 PM
Oh, ok. Sorry I didn't think of it that way. He probably hasn't done anything wrong then.

I am not saying he hasn't done anything wrong but we can't jump to the conclusion he has downloaded kiddie porn.

As I have said a simple stick figure could get you in the shit, it could be a photo of a grand kid having a bath and you can see their 'bits', it could be a legit 'artistic interpretation' or it could be a kiddie porn. Yep, I don't know what it is but I will be following this with keen interest as I grew up with Rolf on TV, find it hard to believe he has committed these offences and will be gutted if it is proved he has.

I won't offer an opinion to guilt or innocence until the case is heard and evidence reported as fact, I think I will rely on the BBC for that.

Glenn 74
30-08-2013, 04:44 PM
Of course the Police have never charged anyone with a lack of solid evidence, to take the heat off themselves, murky the waters or to draw the fire from another because they are beyond reproach and show no fear or favour.



Highlighted some points I found interesting.

I was waiting to see who would desperately latch onto this.

Obviously the "motherfucker is guilty" line was said more in jest and is just a sentence on a screen that doesn't actually "condemn" anyone. But yeah ok, great work and you get half a point champ.

chew
30-08-2013, 04:45 PM
So I am 0.5 up on you then?

con∑demn

/kənˈdem/




Verb




Express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure.
Sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, esp. death: "the rebels had been condemned to death".











No comment on your apparent blind faith in the Police and prosecutors?

darth lefty
30-08-2013, 04:52 PM
I especially like the bit where members of a persecuted minority went out of their way to persecute a different minority.

Bravo, chaps.

Glenn 74
30-08-2013, 04:52 PM
I would love to see how you lot would react if the same charges were laid against the teacher at our kids school, or your babysitter, or your kids swimming coach.

I bet you'd all be waiting for due process wouldn't you.

Dirty pics of kids and sworn statements from victims.. " It could be just stick figures and untrue because the stupid media reported it (who the fuck else is supposed to report it?) , I'm sure it's fine honey, lets drop little Cindy off at Rolf the babysitters. I'm happy to wait for due process."

Fucken wank.

kapyong
30-08-2013, 05:02 PM
I haven't said anything is untrue; the truth is there are 13 charges against him and yes, as reported by the media. Nothing has been sensationalised in the media, only here with terms like kiddie porn, dirty pics of kids etc.

Do you know more than the rest of us? What is the basis of 'making indecent images of a child' charges, is it kiddie porn or an artistic painting of a kid? It seems that the charge could cover both scenarios.

No one here has the facts, the police have laid charges therefore they must have evidence and that will be tested in a court.

AliastheJester
30-08-2013, 05:05 PM
You have a better alternative to due process and rule of law? Or do you wish to through our centuries of legal reasoning only for particular groups? Everyone should be innocent until proven guilty except those terrorists and nonces?

If my (hypothetical) kids were molested, no I wouldn't be waiting for due process. But once I have been charged with murder I would be presumed innocent throughout the trial and would be entitled to due process, the same as anyone else accused of a crime. These aren't really things that we can just do away with because it is convenient or because we don't like particular people, they are fundamental to our judicial system.

Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) you keep playing the 'if it was your kid' argument. Try using a well reasonned argument rather than just playing to peoples fears and prejudices.

ufatbarstard
30-08-2013, 05:08 PM
Is Rolf guilty, I don't know, let the court decide.

the Court of King Caractacus?

Glenn 74
30-08-2013, 05:09 PM
I haven't said anything is untrue; the truth is there are 13 charges against him and yes, as reported by the media. Nothing has been sensationalised in the media, only here with terms like kiddie porn, dirty pics of kids etc.

Do you know more than the rest of us? What is the basis of 'making indecent images of a child' charges, is it kiddie porn or an artistic painting of a kid? It seems that the charge could cover both scenarios.

No one here has the facts, the police have laid charges therefore they must have evidence and that will be tested in a court.

It's obviously something illegal and that the cops charge you with if they find you with it, so no, probably not a stick figure or a picture of a grand kid. You really believe the cops charged him because of something that a normal person would consider innocent. ?

You grew up watching him on tv and sometimes bad news is hard to accept.

shmoo
30-08-2013, 05:12 PM
I would love to see how you lot would react if the same charges were laid against the teacher at our kids school, or your babysitter, or your kids swimming coach.

I bet you'd all be waiting for due process wouldn't you.

Dirty pics of kids and sworn statements from victims.. " It could be just stick figures and untrue because the stupid media reported it (who the fuck else is supposed to report it?) , I'm sure it's fine honey, lets drop little Cindy off at Rolf the babysitters. I'm happy to wait for due process."

Fucken wank.

Obviously any sexual crime against a child is fucking disgusting. No one is suggesting otherwise. BUT our society has gotten just a bit too hysterical about the whole thing. Everyone is a paedophile. Any man who sits on a park bench by himself is a paedophile if there happens to be kids around too. Anyone who takes photos of their kids at the local pool is a paedophile.

The problem with this is that because of the hysteria surrounding sexual crimes against children, accusations stick, regardless of ultimate guilt. If Rolf is found innocent, he will forever be referred to as the paedophile who got away with it. Thats is wrong. Thats is why it's wrong to publicise details of the accused before a conviction. It ruins the most basic premise of the legal system: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Old frt
30-08-2013, 05:27 PM
Oh dear, I hope he didn't get banned without a fair trial.

keys
30-08-2013, 05:31 PM
I hope he did :)

chew
30-08-2013, 05:34 PM
I would love to see how you lot would react if the same charges were laid against the teacher at our kids school, or your babysitter, or your kids swimming coach.

I bet you'd all be waiting for due process wouldn't you.

Dirty pics of kids and sworn statements from victims.. " It could be just stick figures and untrue because the stupid media reported it (who the fuck else is supposed to report it?) , I'm sure it's fine honey, lets drop little Cindy off at Rolf the babysitters. I'm happy to wait for due process."

Fucken wank.

Been there with a niece who was involved in a series of incidents that thankfully have had no negative effect on her.

Perpetrator was found guilty and is one of the reasons you need permission to photograph at children's sports now.

I don't like rock spiders but I do not have blind faith in our Police or justice system either.

What I find really upsetting is I have now left myself open for a comment of <deep voice> "I find your lack of faith in the force disturbing" and nothing, zip. ;)

kapyong
30-08-2013, 05:41 PM
At the risk of having the Pedo Cops knock my door down I googled the subject of 'indecent images of children' as an offence. What's that? It’s sounds like the whawha of the pedo police sirens down the street!

Anyway here is a wiki on the COPINE Scale COPINE scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPINE_scale) This may nor may not be used however I found that through this search which was answered by the Met, https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/indecent_images_of_children

This may be useful if/when the four charges of indecent images are released and any scale is mentioned.

It is here for information.

Gotta go someone’s at the door!

Desmo
30-08-2013, 05:42 PM
I can't make a call on this until the evidence is revealed.
If it ever is.

AliastheJester
30-08-2013, 05:46 PM
Even if the evidence was revealed, I don't want to see it. We'll just have to see what the courts verdict is.

Old frt
30-08-2013, 05:51 PM
Aren't we all missing something here?

The same man murdered "Stairway to Heaven" and got off scot free...

Hang the bastard.

Bukefal
30-08-2013, 05:52 PM
i don't understand something here. why is it that PSB members are not supposed to judge/jump to conclusions/express opinions for this particular case, but anything goes for other cases (e.g. rainey, catholic church, countless SMIDSYs)?

kapyong
30-08-2013, 05:55 PM
Aren't we all missing something here?

The same man murdered "Stairway to Heaven" and got off scot free...

Hang the bastard.

Very good! :lol:

darth lefty
30-08-2013, 05:59 PM
i don't understand something here. why is it that PSB members are not supposed to judge/jump to conclusions/express opinions for this particular case, but anything goes for other cases (e.g. rainey, catholic church, countless SMIDSYs)?

But it doesn't. There's just no one arguing with the people over there, so the people over there aren't being reduced to calling the other people "cunt" when they run out of reason to justify their thoughts.

Far Q
30-08-2013, 06:01 PM
Aren't we all missing something here?

The same man murdered "Stairway to Heaven" and got off scot free...

Hang the bastard.

Fuck, I thought he improved it and got the MBE! :lol:

As for guilty or not I'd rather keep my opinions to myself on these matters but if you guys want to argue I'm keen to argue that my bike is better than yours! Oh yeah, got a bigger dick too.....

kapyong
30-08-2013, 06:04 PM
Fuck, I thought he improved it and got the MBE! :lol:

As for guilty or not I'd rather keep my opinions to myself on these matters but if you guys want to argue I'm keen to argue that my bike is better than yours! Oh yeah, got a bigger dick too.....
Don't show it to the kiddies!

AliastheJester
30-08-2013, 06:05 PM
i don't understand something here. why is it that PSB members are not supposed to judge/jump to conclusions/express opinions for this particular case, but anything goes for other cases (e.g. rainey, catholic church, countless SMIDSYs)?

Rainey had a bench verdict so we didn't need to worry about a jury being influenced (and he was a lawyer so clearly guilty), defending the Catholic church just turns into a religion anti-religion slinging match and it also brings up a lot of peoples personal demons re. the church, and no one would defend those fucking cagers.
And what Lefty said.

Far Q
30-08-2013, 06:06 PM
Rainey had a bench verdict so we didn't need to worry about a jury being influenced (and he was a lawyer so clearly guilty), defending the Catholic church just turns into a religion anti-religion slinging match and it also brings up a lot of peoples personal demons re. the church, and no one would defend those fucking cagers.
And what Lefty said.

But my bike is better than yours! :lol:

AliastheJester
30-08-2013, 06:08 PM
But my bike is better than yours! :lol:

Lies, lies and slander!!!

T-roy
30-08-2013, 06:11 PM
I don't even know who this guy is.

He's being charged with 13 child sex offences.

something about Two little boys....

http://thingsboganslike.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/csi-miami.jpg

Bukefal
30-08-2013, 06:13 PM
But it doesn't. There's just no one arguing with the people over there, so the people over there aren't being reduced to calling the other people "cunt" when they run out of reason to justify their thoughts.

i can't remember any opposition to comments such as 'fucking child-raping priests' or continual rainey/kings park jokes before or even after he was acquitted.

i must've missed the 'cunt' comments.

darth lefty
30-08-2013, 06:15 PM
i can't remember any opposition to comments such as 'fucking child-raping priests' or continual rainey/kings park jokes before or even after he was acquitted.

Right.

Now look at the people in here having a tiff. How many of BenG, thro, Desmo and their type of poster/reasoner were in those other threads?

Bukefal
30-08-2013, 06:22 PM
it seems that there was more going on in this thread than i have seen, but i can't be stuffed reading 11 pages of thread on a friday evening. carry on.

agrid
30-08-2013, 06:39 PM
Well congratulations! You would take it seriously and consider the evidence but "think" he is guilty and that he will get off due to fame. Am I the only one who sees the irony in your statement?

I think you need to look irony in the dictionary. You do have a dictionary right?

- - - Updated - - -


Tragically more due to good silks and technicalities than reality :(

And money.

agrid
30-08-2013, 06:42 PM
Apart from video or photographic evidence, How do you prove sexual abuse from 30 years ago?

Someones word against another. Is that good enough? How many alleged victims are there? Have any of you seen the evidence?
How do we know its not a smear campaign?

There are many assumptions in this thread all based on media reports , speculation and public opinion.
Rolf Harris will need a trial by judge because a trial by jury will convict him on preconceived ideas alone.

The accusations from years ago are worrying, the alleged images from last year are far more concerning

agrid
30-08-2013, 06:50 PM
Obviously any sexual crime against a child is fucking disgusting. No one is suggesting otherwise. BUT our society has gotten just a bit too hysterical about the whole thing. Everyone is a paedophile. Any man who sits on a park bench by himself is a paedophile if there happens to be kids around too. Anyone who takes photos of their kids at the local pool is a paedophile.

The problem with this is that because of the hysteria surrounding sexual crimes against children, accusations stick, regardless of ultimate guilt. If Rolf is found innocent, he will forever be referred to as the paedophile who got away with it. Thats is wrong. Thats is why it's wrong to publicise details of the accused before a conviction. It ruins the most basic premise of the legal system: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

I was sitting is some bushes watching some little boys play. Some cops came around the corner, drove up on the footpath and asked me what I was doing. "Keeping an eye on my kids" I replied. "Have a good day" they said. "Thanks for looking out for my kids I replied".

Blazon
30-08-2013, 06:55 PM
The accusations from years ago are worrying, the alleged images from last year are far more concerning

These are serious charges.
The facts and evidence will be disclosed thru the trial process. I'll reserve judgement until then.

agrid
30-08-2013, 07:03 PM
These are serious charges.
The facts and evidence will be disclosed thru the trial process. I'll reserve judgement until then.

So no discussion with friends and relatives about the case at all? Nothing? Nada? Complete blackout?

Blazon
30-08-2013, 07:09 PM
So no discussion with friends and relatives about the case at all? Nothing? Nada? Complete blackout?

It may come in conversation but I wont speculate about the outcome because I don't have all the information.
Surely as a scientist you can understand that concept?

mstriumph
30-08-2013, 07:40 PM
................ a law enforcement agency such as Scotland Yard (we are not talking some bribe taking bunch of dodgy Indian cops that still use paper cups and string instead of police radios)..........

Dunno
From what I see, the only reason Julian Assange (an Australian that hasn't even been charged with anything in England) can't walk peacefully onto a plane and leave is because the Embassy giving him refuge is surrounded bodies deep with the self-same British Bobbies you are holding up as some sort of shining moral yardstick.

Pre-Assange I would have agreed with you - post-Assange I think they must be either totally naive/stupid (ie the "they know not what they do" defence), unwillingly complicit in wrongdoing but powerless to resist (ie the "I was just following orders" defence) .............or, perhaps, they are just as venal, arrogant and ungodly as the everyone else's police.

I'm thinking perhaps they don't like Australians? - perhaps they don't like bearded artists? My concern that they may have some sort of bias is just as valid as your implication that they are automatically trustworthy just because they are Scotland Yard......................

Is Rolf Harris guilty ... well, like Rumpole, I am a firm believer in what he called the "golden thread that runs through British justice", the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. So let's just wait and see, eh?:mellow:

agrid
30-08-2013, 09:06 PM
Interesting how in another thread that involved the tragic death of a fellow PSBer, followed by the due judicial process and subsequent, more or less, acquittal of the driver, is met with almost universal outrage. How do we know that the driver wasn't distracted by a sneezing fit, a bee up the nose? It is the intent to harm that is important to me.

Desmo
30-08-2013, 09:27 PM
Even if the evidence was revealed, I don't want to see it. We'll just have to see what the courts verdict is.

I do, then I can make a decision for myself instead, based on the facts at hand.
This course of action seems all too uncommon.

BenG
30-08-2013, 09:28 PM
Interesting how in another thread that involved the tragic death of a fellow PSBer, followed by the due judicial process and subsequent, more or less, acquittal of the driver, is met with almost universal outrage. How do we know that the driver wasn't distracted by a sneezing fit, a bee up the nose? It is the intent to harm that is important to me.

You must have been reading a different thread to the one I was reading...

filbert
30-08-2013, 09:39 PM
I have dirty pictures of kids on my computer and I even have pictures of them in the bath afterwards, it really depends on interpretation and context, there are many relatives who could end up in trouble for having those same photos if they were being investigated for any kind of indecent dealings.

Where exactly is the line drawn between kiddy porn and innocent happy snaps of a child that happens to be playing naked in the mud with his puppy? No I'm not referring to the obvious sexually explicit abuse of children I know where that line is, but I've had a few bare butt photos of my son removed from Facebook and reported as kiddy porn WTF?

agrid
30-08-2013, 09:44 PM
I have a photo of my boys standing in the bath with shampoo bubbles as beards and covering their genitals. I was going to present them at their 21st birthday parties but I was threatened with physical harm.

chew
30-08-2013, 10:54 PM
I think you need to look irony in the dictionary. You do have a dictionary right?

- - - Updated - - -



And money.

Well that's what the good silks require as payment. So then you can buy whatever justice you want.


I have a photo of my boys standing in the bath with shampoo bubbles as beards and covering their genitals. I was going to present them at their 21st birthday parties but I was threatened with physical harm.

I know that feeling, I am taller than one of my sons but both have been able to hand me my arse since they were about 18. :( Nowadays I shape up, have a bit of a spar and then give up before I get damaged.

Hoddo
31-08-2013, 05:39 AM
Aren't we all missing something here?

The same man murdered "Stairway to Heaven" and got off scot free...

Hang the bastard.

Then the prick teamed up with Status Quo in 2009, surely that would have given Scotland Yard a hint that something was seriously wrong ?

kapyong
31-08-2013, 07:16 AM
I trust 'Scotters' is investigating Led Zeppelin and Status Quo members then, you know; association and all that!

mstriumph
31-08-2013, 08:05 AM
Obviously any sexual crime against a child is fucking disgusting. No one is suggesting otherwise. BUT our society has gotten just a bit too hysterical about the whole thing. Everyone is a paedophile. Any man who sits on a park bench by himself is a paedophile if there happens to be kids around too. Anyone who takes photos of their kids at the local pool is a paedophile.

The problem with this is that because of the hysteria surrounding sexual crimes against children, accusations stick, regardless of ultimate guilt. If Rolf is found innocent, he will forever be referred to as the paedophile who got away with it. Thats is wrong. Thats is why it's wrong to publicise details of the accused before a conviction. It ruins the most basic premise of the legal system: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

^^^ wot he said ... all of it but particularly the pc aspects. it's now to the point that a father is afraid to hug his own family for fear of being looked at sideways ... and as for teachers - heaven forfend they put a comforting arm around a sobbing child in case their empathy later comes back to bite them.

I was molested as a 7 year old (not irrevocably, I decked the woman with a tent post) - I reckon most kids recognise when comfort and support is deteriorating into something creepy. Our task, as parents, is to alert our offspring to the fact that there are predators out there and make sure they know they should speak up about it, loudly and persistently, at the time, if they don't feel they can deal with it themselves.

Sad that those girls that claim Rolf Harris did something wrong left it for years and years before speaking out - if they'd spoken up at the time it could have been dealt with then and, if he was guilty, perhaps kept other kids safe from him.

Desmo
31-08-2013, 02:40 PM
Sad that those girls that claim Rolf Harris did something wrong left it for years and years before speaking out - if they'd spoken up at the time it could have been dealt with then and, if he was guilty, perhaps kept other kids safe from him.

If you were 14 years old and had just been fingered by a national treasure, would you have spoken out?

Tiger1
31-08-2013, 03:24 PM
If you were 14 years old and had just been fingered by a national treasure, would you have spoken out?

Exactly. Thats how jimmy Saville got away with it for so many years. So many people knew the abuse was happening but for some reason he managed
to evade prosecution or even serious investigation. Saville survived by clever manipulation and sheer luck.

Having said that I don't believe Rolf Harris is anywhere near the level of depravity displayed by Saville but I do believe he is probably guilty of
some errors of moral behaviour. He wouldn't be charged otherwise.

mstriumph
31-08-2013, 04:12 PM
If you were 14 years old and had just been fingered by a national treasure, would you have spoken out? No. I would have done my best to damage him physically. But these girls didn't ... and they didn't speak out when it could have done more good, either? .......

I can think of half a dozen reasons they didn't, obviously you can too ... but NONE of them could have been good enough to outweigh the damage through not speaking up. By the way, these were girls but we shouldn't concentrate on that, all kids need to be told they need to speak up about this sort of thing and that we'll support them if they do.

Desmo
31-08-2013, 04:28 PM
No. I would have done my best to damage him physically. But these girls didn't ... and they didn't speak out when it could have done more good, either? .......

I can think of half a dozen reasons they didn't, obviously you can too ... but NONE of them could have been good enough to outweigh the damage through not speaking up. By the way, these were girls but we shouldn't concentrate on that, all kids need to be told they need to speak up about this sort of thing and that we'll support them if they do.

I can't help but read some misogyny into your post, it's almost as if you are blaming them for this not being sorted out years ago.

Tiger1
31-08-2013, 05:00 PM
I can think of half a dozen reasons they didn't, obviously you can too ... but NONE of them could have been good enough to outweigh the damage through not speaking up. By the way, these were girls but we shouldn't concentrate on that, all kids need to be told they need to speak up about this sort of thing and that we'll support them if they do.

I agree strongly with this post

filbert
31-08-2013, 06:16 PM
Because the victims of abuse are always to blame for not doing something to stop it?

mstriumph
31-08-2013, 06:48 PM
Because the victims of abuse are always to blame for not doing something to stop it?

No - that's our job as parents


to make children of all genders aware that not everyone has their best interests at heart (without making them screaming paranoiacs or scaring them to death)
to talk with them about what's best to do if there's a situation (ie remove the embarrassment up front)
to ensure they know that we'll support them if they need to speak out


I'm sure most parents do this already ... unfortunately, though, it isn't universal and some kids just don't get the support they need from those they should be able to rely on (could give you a personal f'rinstance but won't - it's immaterial now).

Should be part of Parenting 101 as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, that's right, there ISN'T any qualification for parenting - and kids don't come with a User Manual either ... probably part of the problem :mellow:

AliastheJester
31-08-2013, 06:50 PM
No - that's our job as parents


to make children of all genders aware that not everyone has their best interests at heart (without making them screaming paranoiacs or scaring them to death)
to talk with them about what's best to do if there's a situation (ie remove the embarrassment up front)
to ensure they know that we'll support them if they need to speak out


I'm sure most parents do this already ... unfortunately, though, it isn't universal and some kids just don't get the support they need from those they should be able to rely on (could give you a personal f'rinstance but won't - it's immaterial now).

Should be part of Parenting 101 as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, that's right, there ISN'T any qualification for parenting - and kids don't come with a User Manual either ... probably part of the problem :mellow:

What happens when it is a parent or another authority figure doing the abusing?

mstriumph
31-08-2013, 07:05 PM
You are right, of course ... it isn't easy
but we have to try
because the alternative is to abandon the lambs to the wolves

Authority figure ... I was brought up not to be cowed by those in authority ... I recommend it.
Parent or carer ... I understand that the stats. suggest that many would be abusers are close to home ... guess it's up to the other grown ups in the child's life?

Wish I had all the answers.
I'm sure that there are cleverer people with better suggestions than mine on here ... would be good to hear from them.

agrid
31-08-2013, 07:24 PM
I know of a family who found out a relative molested one of the kids. The extended family were concerned about a court case and the impact on the child so they got together and, of course, bashed the relative. They then told him that he had to pay for the child's college education or receive ongoing bashings. On a lighter note, the offender's name was Chester and henceforth he was known as "Chester the Molester". I'm not saying it was an ideal solution but apparently things worked out quite well or this family.

(Apologies to any Chesters on here)

AliastheJester
31-08-2013, 07:52 PM
You are right, of course ... it isn't easy
but we have to try
because the alternative is to abandon the lambs to the wolves

Authority figure ... I was brought up not to be cowed by those in authority ... I recommend it.
Parent or carer ... I understand that the stats. suggest that many would be abusers are close to home ... guess it's up to the other grown ups in the child's life?

Wish I had all the answers.
I'm sure that there are cleverer people with better suggestions than mine on here ... would be good to hear from them.

I understand what you are trying to get at. Yes kids need to know that what is happening is wrong and that they can get help.
For some victims they either don't understand what is being done to them or there is something preventing them from being able to have it stopped (fear, not being believed, someone in authority, social stigma, will destroy their family etc.). Not everyone really has a way of stopping it. Things have also improved a lot since the 1980s re. investigation of abuse, earlier than that you were unlikely to get an investigation at all.
What I, and I assume FIlbert also, are trying to get at is you need to be careful of victim blaming, it is always the abuser's fault not the victim's. We have to be careful not to pass judgement on them for not speaking out etc., even though it would have been better if they had felt able to.
I look it a bit like how many women never report being raped, there is (some) support there for them and it is taken seriously by the police, but the majority of cases go unreported (60% I think). Even if they do report it they have to face going through the legal process and social stigma (or peoples pity) if anyone finds out. And if they are realy unlucky people will side with the rapist, and they'll get blamed for it.

mstriumph
31-08-2013, 08:53 PM
you need to be careful of victim blaming, it is always the abuser's fault not the victim's. We have to be careful not to pass judgement on them for not speaking out etc., even though it would have been better if they had felt able to. .......... we don't disagree on this - I must have expressed myself badly.

filbert
31-08-2013, 08:57 PM
we don't disagree on this - I must have expressed myself badly.

It happens...

So awareness and education should be advocated rather than questioning or judging those who couldn't speak up?

I can live with that :) not that my opinion really matters but the point is clarified.