[Closed] Oh Rolf 🙁

All seems like a witch hunt to me.

Is that based on you having been in court every day to hear all the evidence, and the witnesses from both sides being tested by cross-examination?

The human race can be a sick, sad, bad group of animals, thankfully for every bad one there is a good one in existence!

That seems rather an arbitrary statement. Where is the bad line drawn, where the good one? Is it really a 1:1 ratio or are there orders of magnitude more bad than good or vice versa? I think it's going to take some research.

Variable, depending on philosophical outlook and the current state of human nature.
Which of course varies due to circumstance.
🙂

All seems like a witch hunt to me. With compensation pay outs being sought by alleged victims.

You're saying that without any basis to say that and when the limitation period for civil assault claims relating to the sexual assaults proven would have passed decades ago. You pillock.

Our minds are free, what we do with our bodies is limited by social rules and laws. We learn to manage our desires within the framework of the society we live in. Societies are variable with differing values, when viewed from the inside you can perhaps label them "good, bad, sick, sad" or whatever, doing that to another society you're not a member of is judgmental. I'm doing it, I find the lack of prescription laws in the UK unfair because I'm used to living in a society with prescription laws. Other are judging 60s events through modern eyes.

When Lewis and Clarke crossed the US they found the Amerindian willingness to lend wives strange but fitted in. The Amerindians mocked the explorers because they ate dogs. Two different but functional worlds.

In the 60s the headmaster of my junior school spent much of the day bouncing little girls up and down on his knee. Headmasters these days never touch kids and if they really need to, find a find a member of the appropriate sex to deal with the child and make sure there are witnesses. The headmaster of Madame's school never shuts his office door. A teacher in the sixties would give an upset child a comforting hug/pat/hair ruffle, these days kids have to be left to cry - Madame says the female secretary still dares to give girls hug when they are sent to her. We are moving towards a zero contact society because everyone assumes a friendly gesture will be taken the wrong way and land them in trouble.

Society evolves, it changes, to label the changes good or bad depends entirely on your point of view. My views are based on what I've lived and seen

We are moving towards a zero contact society because everyone assumes a friendly gesture will be taken the wrong way and land them in trouble.

We're not. (No doubt, you'll keep saying it and if that's what you need to do to convince yourself, you go and knock yerself out dude.)

Edukator I admire you for ploughing an individual furrow but cant see what your post has got to do with child molestation. In fact I find your first paragraph a bit disturbing.

News of the sentances just in. They are going to remove his testicles and he has to spend the rest of his life in jail.

In other news Oscar Pistorius is going to have coaching lessons to change his voice from a whining little bitch to a mans voice.

A teacher in the sixties would give an upset child a comforting hug/pat/hair ruffle, these days kids have to be left to cry

That [i]may[/i] be the case in whatever specific example you are referring to.

But it certainly isn't a general rule.

hora -
News of the sentances just in. They are going to remove his testicles and he has to spend the rest of his life in jail.

In other news Oscar Pistorius is going to have coaching lessons to change his voice from a whining little bitch to a mans voice.

He got convicted of 12 offences.
Does anyone actually believe those are all the atrocities a pedophile who happens to be friends with Saville has comitted?
I'm sure many were too scared to come forward and more will come to light in the future.

I recall the sixties was brutal and abusive with corporal punishment the norm....IIRC it led to folk growing up free of empathy and craving attention

Pondo you strike me as abit [i]vanilla[/i] at best

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/01/rolf-harris-convicted-silence-sexual-abuse-disturbed?CMP=fb_gu

Edukator.

Some forms of morality have almost always been considered universally absolute.
For very good reasons.
Sexual contact with children is damaging to the child, physically and mentally, even in societies where it is not illegal.

Attempting to justify any sexual assault by an adult on any child is unacceptable.
Always.

There appear to be plenty of people on here who cannot grasp this simple concept, going by previous threads on the subject.
I'll link to a few later.

I find it quite disturbing, tbh.

In the 60s the headmaster of my junior school spent much of the day bouncing little girls up and down on his knee.

The only purpose I can think of for recalling this bizarre alleged behaviour is to suggest that in the 1960s it was perfectly acceptable for a headmaster to spend much of the day bouncing little girls up and down on his knee.

Headmasters spending their day bouncing little girls on their knees was not acceptable in the 1960s, and if your argument relies on people believing bollocks like that then I suggest you just give up.

hora -
Pondo you strike me as abit vanilla at best

[i]Does that mean anything to anyone else?[/i]

does anything Hora types? 😆

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.itv.com/news/2014-07-01/footage-shows-rolf-harris-joking-with-jimmy-savile-in-1992/ ]Plenty more to come I'm afraid[/url]

If someone calls you 'abit Vanilla' it means your insipid/abit bland dear.

Don't know if there's anything to be drawn from it, or whether it's reflective of the number and complexity of the charges, but the jury deliberated for well over thirty hours, which suggests it wasn't that clear cut to them.

Gotta say, fair play to the women who came forward, can't imagine how hard that must have been. There was a woman on Jeremy Vine today, she'd taken her daughter to see him (the woman owned one of his paintings) - she had to ask her daughter today whether anything had happened, which must be a pretty horrid conversation to have to contemplate...

hora -
If someone calls you 'abit Vanilla' it means your insipid/abit bland dear.

Technically, I believe it's known as the 'Stretford Defence'.
😉

I think there are two Horas. The thoroughly pleasant chap I met and the one who posts on here.
I wonder if by chance they could be related?

Back ontopic, it always gets my back up when the comment 'it was a different era' is bandied around. Usually around parenting, to hide bad parents as though bad parenting was the norm. When it wasn't. I remember friends parents being good/heads screwed on and others who were complete selfish idiots.

A different era when applied to the gropers in the media - so that was all blokes then, it was the norm to grab a stranger womans arse or physically casually assault a female work colleague?

Rusty there are hora twins? 😯

Some forms of morality have almost always been considered universally absolute.
For very good reasons.
Sexual contact with children is damaging to the child, physically and mentally, even in societies where it is not illegal.

Attempting to justify any sexual assault by an adult on any child is unacceptable.
Always.

There appear to be plenty of people on here who cannot grasp this simple concept, going by previous threads on the subject.
I'll link to a few later.

I find it quite disturbing, tbh.

I once made a comment about the rock stars of the era in question on a different thread - Ronnie Wood etc as well as John Peel, I think were the discussion points. At the time I was attempting to express what I perceived to be the attitude held by some at that time. It was immediately jumped on by Bunnyhop and, iirc, you, too - expressed in very similar terms. When folk like you take the moral high ground, for whatever reason, and deliberately misconstrue other folks musings and opinions, it makes for an unpleasant discussion, almost like you have to defend yourself, and once you’ve been branded, that’s that.

The attitude in the sixties was different to nowadays and while I agree that all molestation and unwanted sexual attention is wrong, I understand that, as a result of those attitudes, victims were unable to come forward because it simply wasn’t believed or accepted by the majority of British society at the time, [i]in my opinion[/i]. Kids should be seen and not heard etc. All total bollocks but it did happen. To discuss these issues while denying backward attitudes existed and influenced the behaviour of victims and confidants alike is just being unrealistic.

And before you pipe up about me talking shit, I was on the receiving end of abuse that went unpunished and unnoticed. As a victim I always felt guilty; as if it was my fault. That’s what certain types of folk are good at - making you feel wrong no matter what the reality.

Ronnie Woods/John Peel- are unique just like Townsend. Lets not forget those who did wrong were outed so you can see it wasn't the norm. Otherwise no one would out them. Plus the vast majority (rest) of the stars aren't outed- so either the massive majority are normal or there is one or two more stars who may pop up out of the woodwork.

What bothers me is the likes of Ronnie Woods- can blatantly woo an underaged girl as hes got the blessing of her mother and yet his band members etc etc etc aren't screaming the obvious at him. Just 'I dont want owt to do with that mess'?

yet his band members etc etc etc aren't screaming the obvious at him. Just 'I dont want owt to do with that mess'?

Kind of the attitude I was referring to. Back then it was, as you put it..."No * way am I getting involved with that!" where as nowadays it's.."No * way am I letting someone get away with that!"

It's never been acceptable but it's definitely been tolerated.

teasel.

Firstly:
Everything I say is just an opinion.
Just like anyone else.

Secondly:
I'll reread that thread (the one about the teacher?).
If I've been a judgemental prick, then I unreservedly apologise.

Thirdly:
I don't think that condemning sexual contact between adults and children could be considered to be 'getting on a high horse'.

Lastly:
I agree that attitudes toward the discussion of such assault and the repercussionds thereof have changed.
I've never said otherwise.
I assumed we had all taken that as read.

However, such assault was not condoned by society in the 60's.
To suggest otherwise is wrong.
It was illegal then and is illegal now.
Which is what I said previously.

Don't know if there's anything to be drawn from it, or whether it's reflective of the number and complexity of the charges, but the jury deliberated for well over thirty hours, which suggests it wasn't that clear cut to them.

Don't know if you've served on a jury, but I have, and 30 hours doesn't seem like an especially long time, particularly as they have a duty to consider all the evidence, some of which was from a long time ago, and contradictory (e.g. the "I've never been to Cambridge" - "Oh look here's a video of you in Cambridge" stuff). Doesn't mean they didn't all think "guilty" from the start, more that they have made an effort to discharge their duties properly.

Thirdly:
I don't think that condemning sexual contact between adults and children could be considered to be 'getting on a high horse'.

Lastly:
I agree that attitudes toward the discussion of such assault and the repercussionds thereof have changed.
I've never said otherwise.
I assumed we had all taken that as read.

However, such assault was not condoned by society in the 60's.
To suggest otherwise is wrong.
It was illegal then and is illegal now.

Dunno, I get the feeling that the attitude towards celebrities (rock stars spring to mind, a Radio 1 DJ would be similar) and teenage groupies was different back in the 70s, there was more acceptance of a "stud" type figure.

With smaller children it was never acceptable, but it was far more likely to lead to a response similar to the Catholic church - get the offender out of here and away from [i]our[/i] kids, [i]their[/i] kids are someone else's problem.

Don't know if you've served on a jury, but I have, and 30 hours doesn't seem like an especially long time

Can there be a prosecution without a complaint?

In terms of rockstars Bill Wyman went to the police voluntarily at the beginning of yewtree and was told he had no case to answer as there had been no complaint.

Smith herself confirmed publicly three years ago that she was 14 when they first had sex, and a decade earlier her older sister had called for him to be prosecuted.

“I went to the police and I went to the public prosecutor and said, 'Do you want to talk to me? Do you want to meet up with me, or anything like that?’ and I got a message back, 'No’,” he said.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rolling-stones/9962776/Ex-Rolling-Stone-Bill-Wyman-reveals-he-approached-police-regarding-sex-claims.html ]Telegraph[/url]

I'd have thought you'd been reading my posts long enough to know they are the whole truth when it comes to my personal experience, Ernie. I've had a look at friendsreunited to see how others remember that headmaster. One states " Mr ****** A churchwarden and respected member of the community. I shall only say I am glad I am a boy".

I'm not challenging whether the alleged behaviour occurred, I'm challenging you apparent suggestion that such behaviour would have been considered acceptable in the 1960s.

Edukator - what you're describing is 'Everybody knew, nobody said' not that if it had been reported to the police by multiple victims that no action would have been taken because it was seen as morally and legally acceptable.

It seems to me Edukator considers it acceptable in this time.
Nice.

All the kids saw it happening, many reported it back to their parents and nobody lifted a finger. My sister attended the same school and my parents simply told her to keep away from him. Unacceptable behaviour but tolerated, see Teasel's comments. Homosexual grooming was tolerated in the cycling club I was a member of in the 70s (I wasn't the one doing the grooming).

The only possible reason a headmaster could want to spend his day bouncing little girls on his knee would be for sexual gratification.

The suggestion that in the 1960s had parents/adults been told of the behaviour they would have simply dismissed it as a perk of the job is quite ludicrous.

EDIT : "my parents simply told her to keep away from him" ffs. No teacher ever touched me or made physical contact with me at any time in my school years, beyond with a cane, and I can't recall any other pupil having a different experience.

[i]"Homosexual grooming was tolerated in the cycling club I was a member of in the 70s"[/i]

Again, ffs. "Homosexual grooming" was not tolerated in the 1970s. I knew kids in my school in Peckham who boasted that they engaged in the despicable act of "queer bashing".

Gutted if it's true gutted for him if it's not - No winners in this one.

If true - the victims are the winners..!

It seems to me Edukator considers it acceptable in this time.
Nice.

In case you haven't understood my position:

1/ I'm in favour of "prescription", a legal limit to the time after a crime one can be prosecuted for it. I don't believe a crime can be safely prosecuted 30-40 years after the events on witness statements. If you want to know more, do some research on the justification for prescription in French law.

2/ Rolf has been prosecuted because the British system allows it. I am not convinced the conviction is safe or fair but he has been found guilty by the court so will be sentenced. Given that he poses little or no threat to society I think a suspended sentence would be the most appropriate.

3/ Sex crime against children is unacceptable. What legally constitutes sex crime has evolved over the years. Corporal punishment is no longer legal in schools which has removed much of the ambiguity that existed in the 60s and 70s. What was allowed or tolerated then is plain illegal now. However we shouldn't apply 2014 standards to cases concerning events that took place back then. Headmasters that took pleasure in spanking little girls bums (as school rules allowed, parents were then happy with, and the law permitted) should not be dragged through the courts 40 years later. And nor IMO should Rolf.

Those are just my opinions guys, I'm not trolling.

You truly do live in a world of your own Edukator.

You calling me a liar is getting tiresome, Ernie. I was there, I was the one being groomed. As a streetwise 15-year-old I made it clear the first kiss wasn't welcome and that was the end of it.

He has a different point of view. Other nearby European neighbours have similar different views. You and I may think he is wrong, but constantly going over the same old points seems a waste of bandwidth to me.

Wait...so you didn't tolerate it?

Is confuse.

😛

However, such assault was not condoned by society in the 60's.
To suggest otherwise is wrong.
It was illegal then and is illegal now.
Which is what I said previously.

I wasn't really referring to the legalities, more the attitude and as I wrote on the other page, it's been tolerated in the past. Mogrim's first paragraph on the other page puts it better than I could.

The suggestion that in the 1960s had parents/adults been told of the behaviour they would have simply dismissed it as a perk of the job is quite ludicrous.

A friend of mine had an experience at the age of twelve. She was a quick developer, so to write, and that was all it took for the perpetrator to think it okay.

"C'mon, you know you want it".

When she told someone in a position of authority she was told all stable girls go through the same thing. This was 1984. So, you may well be correct; it might not have happened in the sixties but it sure as **** happened in the eighties...