Rolf Harris

[logbox]

Today in court Rolf sang part of Jake the peg and demonstated how to play the digeridoo, tomorrow he might do two little boys.

[bankhaunter]

It was indeed the lacking of will on the part of the authorities why so much was 'accepted' in the past.

A classic example is how for so many years, the police would not prosecute a wife beater unless the wife was prepared to press charges, their grounds being that the wife's cooperation was essential.

That was complete balderdash, the law has always been that if you cause another person an injury, you can be prosecuted without any complaint from the injured party or even if they had given their permission for the injury to be made.

[cee-dee]

If no-one complained, how would the cops know about it to prosecute?

In the past, hard evidence was demanded and one persons word against another wasn't sufficient to raise a prosecution.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

It was indeed the lacking of will on the part of the authorities why so much was 'accepted' in the past.

A classic example is how for so many years, the police would not prosecute a wife beater unless the wife was prepared to press charges, their grounds being that the wife's cooperation was essential.

That was complete balderdash, the law has always been that if you cause another person an injury, you can be prosecuted without any complaint from the injured party or even if they had given their permission for the injury to be made.

---

In most cases it was, and still is, essential.

If there are no witnesses and the wife says she "fell down the stairs" then how can the CPS bring a prosecution?

[bankhaunter]

I'm thinking more of those situations where an initial complaint was made and later dropped or where the wife has stated how the injury occured.

There may even be sufficient circumstantial evidence, nature of the injuries for example.

In one of the Scandanavian countries the police introduced a policy where if an incident came to their attention, they would gather what evidence was available and if it was considered sufficient, they would prosecute, the wife having no say in the matter.

It's all a matter of will.

[j_uk643]

---

@evoman3957 wrote:

No, rather more concerned with what we get to hear about; than what we don't get to hear about. that's why the old addage "what the eyes don't see, the heart doesn't grieve over" applies I'm afraid..............and why a free press is important, because they bring issues to the public's attention. You can bet your life that Police & Politicians wouldn't keep us informed of events they were dealing with, that's where the press come in.

---

You have what your parents never had, a whole world of information at your finger tips-the internet. Yet for many their world still revolves around tabloids, owned by a small group of people with similar values.

Clifford most people may have thought a bit of  a sleaze. Savile might have been thought the same by some

Harris though was apparently an amiable, Australian who played music on a wash board, & waved his paint brush & made animals come back to life. In some people’s opinion, that would give him lifetime immunity – he simply could not be guilty. Some have a one-dimensional view of offenders: they are painted either good or bad, with no grey areas. Consequently Harris must be wholly innocent, regardless of the evidence, & based on his TV persona.

Fortunately not everyone takes the same view

No idea what in general this proper evidence is, except a misunderstanding.

[cee-dee]

Justa minit.

If the newspapers were not around, just who would be posting any news on the net?

The news agencies do report some news but (in the UK) Sky News has very limited real news and although the BBC and ITV have quite extensive news sites, where'd you think the news items get picked up from in the first place?

OK, so the newspapers often seem to concentrate on sleazy, tatty news but they also do some excellent work with proper, investigative journalism (not the harrassing type).

[evoman3957]

Some have a one-dimensional view of offenders: they are painted either good or bad, with no grey areas. Consequently Harris must be wholly innocent, regardless of the evidence, & based on his TV persona.

Fortunately not everyone takes the same view

No, actually , some of us talk from experience of working with offenders in the justice system over many years. Of hearing the real "Them" talk, when they are behind bars and have got nothing left to gain or lose; because they have already been found guilty, in a court of law..............little knowledge is a dangerous thing !

[bankhaunter]

A interesting article here, from the US but that makes no difference to the content.

The truly dangerous kind of sex offenders who target young, unknowing victims are usually people we know and like, Rookhuyzen said. “That’s why we give them access to our children.”

Some offenders so effectively normalize their behavior that many people “may not even realize they were sexually abused until their 30s or 40s,” said Anderson,

http://www.pamplinmedia.com/fgnt/36-news/212929-71113-molesters-often-likeable-and-familiar

[j_uk643]

The print media as it exists in it’s entirety  today, will likely not exist in a few years  time

Nothing to do with regulation, just economics/technology

Tabloids  have little to no interest in *news*.

Agenda and fiction costs far less, and achieves far more

The idea that news originates from such in general is misplaced

[j_uk643]

---

@evoman3957 wrote:

No, actually , some of us talk from experience of working with offenders in the justice system over many years. Of hearing the real "Them" talk, when they are behind bars and have got nothing left to gain or lose; because they have already been found guilty, in a court of law..............little knowledge is a dangerous thing !

---

Yes I knew your background. It was a general statement, whilst I might take issue with some of your points, I suspect you have never met Harris, so only know the TV persona like most of us. Were you at the trial, did you hear the evidence?

.

[evoman3957]

Of course I've never met Harris, but then I've never come down on one side or the other ( if you read my past posts on this subject ). I did in fact state, in a past post, that the jury ( who were privy to all the facts presented ) would decide.........and that would be that. I also made it clear, that despite rank or privilege; the law should apply to everybody. I also said ( from the point of view of complainants ) that, among all the genuine cases, this sort of thing attracted the inevitable parasites..............to know people, is to know that to be inevitable.

[rose2008-2008]

They say the quiet ones are the worst!. Rolf Harris it seemed was the Saint Francis of the animal world and seemed a lovely man. But i had that horrible feeling; even though i never thought he could be capable of that at one point, he was going to be Guilty.

[j_uk643]

 I did read your posts

But your view appeared to be that they are being prosecuted under current legislation/morals, which isn’t really true

Jury did decide, I don't think verdicts should be beyond review, but not for the reason someone was on telly ( thats a general comment btw as are most )

‘We need a free press’….unsure what your definition would be on that, but I would suggest we actually don’t currently have one

No doubt some officers were/are  corrupt.

Its unlikely in any large sample some may be less than 100% truthful, happens in most areas

but exceptions shouldnt make policy

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@rose2008-2008 wrote:

They say the quiet ones are the worst!. Rolf Harris it seemed was the Saint Francis of the animal world and seemed a lovely man. But i had that horrible feeling; even though i never thought he could be capable of that at one point, he was going to be Guilty.

---

Well, he wasn't exactly "quiet".  More a bouncing extravert.

Thing is, you can have a sexual perversion and still be good with animals, an entertainer, etc, etc.  One aspect of self does not preclude others.  You are not only your sexual preference.  It is but one part of you.  And judging by the apparent popularity of child porn, his preference is not particularly uncommon.

As I've said before, I'm not excusing the behaviour, I'm just putting it in a wider context.

[j_uk643]

Some would take issue on the terminology used , 'porn' having the connotation of consent attached too it, child abuse being preferred since consent is absent

Not sure on definition in context of how common or uncommon

Mostly it's a male thing, which largely, though not wholly, removes approx half the population

Most paedophiles ive encountered reject they are, even after convictions involving say 7 year olds

Some paedophiles might suggest many other males are no different, but then thats anecdotal & goes someway to normalizing in their view, their own behavior so could be argued they have a vested interest

In terms of the figures ive seen, from memory,I doubt  it's that large, making a few reasonable  assumptions 

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@j_uk643 wrote:

Some would take issue on the terminology used , 'porn' having the connotation of consent attached too it, child abuse being preferred since consent is absent

---

Fair point.  I was using it to differentiate between direct contact and internet viewing of images.  Obviously, the latter is more wide-spread than the former.

[tommy.irene]

Harris was jailed last week for five and half years for 12 indecent assaults against four women who were aged as young as seven up to 19.
Since then reports of a further 12 women have come forward in Australia alleging the 84-year-old abused them. I wonder if they will let him go to Australia for his court case..

[tommy.irene]

20 VIPs in child sex ring, claims campaigner: Whistleblower says senior politicians, military figures and people with links to the Royals were members

• Peter McKelvie, 65, first raised alarm about the child abuse two years ago
• He says the conspiracy may have been going on for 65 years 
  
• McKelvie helped to convict notorious child abuser Peter Righton
• Righton also a founding member of the Paedophile Information Exchange 
  
• McKelvie said abusers made up a ‘small percentage’ of British Establishment
  

By CHRIS GREENWOOD

PUBLISHED: 23:42 GMT, 8 July 2014 | UPDATED: 07:18 GMT, 9 July 2014

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2685309/20-VIPs-child-sex-ring-claims-campaigner-Whistleblow... 

[rose2008-2008]

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

---

@rose2008-2008 wrote:

They say the quiet ones are the worst!. Rolf Harris it seemed was the Saint Francis of the animal world and seemed a lovely man. But i had that horrible feeling; even though i never thought he could be capable of that at one point, he was going to be Guilty.

---

Well, he wasn't exactly "quiet".  More a bouncing extravert.

Thing is, you can have a sexual perversion and still be good with animals, an entertainer, etc, etc.  One aspect of self does not preclude others.  You are not only your sexual preference.  It is but one part of you.  And judging by the apparent popularity of child porn, his preference is not particularly uncommon.

As I've said before, I'm not excusing the behaviour, I'm just putting it in a wider context.

---

Well yes i suppose your right there,, i suppose i mean he was just a St Francis of Assisi character. I mean he seemed so CHILD FRIENDLY!!!!. But hes another kind of  CHILD FRIENDLY,,one we did not expect. People can pretend to be so harmless,,, its creepy. You just dont know who your dealing with in this day and age!!.

[j_uk643]

I am sure quite a number of people would have been surprised at Harris being charged, for reasons already mentioned

If you see someone on TV for a long time it's tempting to believe you know them, have some handle on their personality/character and   many would have viewed Harris  in a positive way. But it's not necessarily accurate, nor does it preclude other forms of less desirable behavior.