***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 22 *****
Continuing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 4 Jul 14 at 16:11
|
Gary Glitter charged
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27720875
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Jun 14 at 21:31
|
Assuming Wikipedia to be accurate, then good God, what a slime ball!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Glitter
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Jun 14 at 21:31
|
|
About time he topped himself and did us all a favour !
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Jun 14 at 21:31
|
In today's summing up the judge has called out the following:
The eight similarities between the alleged victim's allegations, according to the prosecution, are:
1. Alleged victim under 16
2. Harris met alleged victim in capacity of celebrity
3. Alleged victim unable to physically escape
4. Bear hugs
5. Swift move to indecent assault
6. The nature of the alleged assault
7. Others present nearby
8. Harris behaving as if nothing has happened
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rolf-harris-trial-live-updates-3709234#ixzz34uQrKYMH
The list on it's own makes a fairly compelling case IMO, and I am one of the "doubters" about the veracity of all these historic claims.
I suppose the judge will put the other view later (if there is one, beyond the celebs who came out to support him) to balance.
|
|
As I've mentioned before, there appears to be another aspect to the Harris case which can't come out till after the verdict on these charges.
|
>> another aspect to the Harris case which can't come out till after the verdict on these charges.
You have whetted our curiosity with this before ROR. Are you restrained by law or natural modesty? Surely you can drop a roundabout hint or two?
This silence looks suspiciously like aiding and abetting or failing to disclose.
:o}
|
|
Maybe he's got previous...
|
|
If he had and it had never come out before it couldn't be mentioned/reported during this trial??
|
|
A little Googling is your friend:)
|
|
Almost certainly Sub Judice once the trial got under way, but it was in the public domain beforehand. Wait till the verdict (Whichever way it goes) for it to emerge.
|
|
Yeah, had a browse, pretty sure I know what you're talking about now...
|
>>
>> 1. Alleged victim under 16
>>
That's about as circumstantial as circumstantial evidence can get - hardly telling, is it?
9. All the alleged victims are alleged victims. Suspicious similarity there.
|
>> >> 1. Alleged victim under 16
>> >>
>>
>> That's about as circumstantial as circumstantial evidence can get - hardly telling, is it?
Surely all the Judge is doing is summarising the prosecution's case which is the RH had a modus operandi of targeting girls/young women of a particular age. All the alleged victims fit that pattern and taken together with the other listed factors the Crown says there is a pattern.
Jury should retire today so verdicts early next week assuming jurors think the prosecution has enough meat to get past first base.
|
Jury has retired to consider verdicts.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27918929
Unlikely I think there will be anything before weekend unless they're either convinced immediately or have a 'Le Vell' level of disbelief of prosecution's case.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 19 Jun 14 at 15:21
|
>>level of disbelief of prosecution's case.
Near the beginning of all of this someone said, in here I think, that they'd always felt something was a bit "off" about Rolf Harris. I thought the same, but never added what would just seem as a "me too" comment.
Increasingly though I can remember thinking there was something strange about him, right back to when I was young and he was promoting that handheld, electronic piano thing.
I haven't followed the trial nor paid attention to the reports, but I think I shall be quite surprised if he is found Not Guilty.
|
I admit to having had an impression of Rolf as a much more wholesome individual.
Of course I am aware that people in the public eye with an image to maintain are frequently not the same at close quarters.
A friend of mine sold him some replacement windows in about 1978 and seemed to think he was OK!
It's all very disappointing.
|
>>It's all very disappointing. <<
It's not disappointing at all where I come from.
The higher people rise on that pedestal in my estimation the farther they have to fall, and sadly, they always do.
Pat
|
"A friend of mine sold him some replacement windows in about 1978 and seemed to think he was OK!"
You knew Ted Moult then? :)
Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 20 Jun 14 at 00:08
|
>> "A friend of mine sold him some replacement windows in about 1978 and seemed to
>> think he was OK!"
>>
>> You knew Ted Moult then? :)
No, but when I called at thr Tan Hill Inn last year I did have a good look at the windows:)
|
|
Perhaps replacement window fitters are the new cabbies - the down to earth cheerfully gloomy types with a forthright view on every situation and some tales to tell about their famous clients.
|
>> Perhaps replacement window fitters are the new cabbies - the down to earth cheerfully gloomy
>> types with a forthright view on every situation and some tales to tell about their
>> famous clients.
>>
You could say that about Rent Boys.
|
Still no verdict after two and a half days.
Hung jury again?
|
|
Bet they come back today, which is a full week since they were sent out.
|
The Mirror has a live blog from the court. Yesterday's account is here:
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rolf-harris-trial-recap-updates-3766860
Jury seem to be struggling and are asking questions of judge (see 2:35pm).
|
|
The questions don't give you much faith in that particular jury to reach a verdict based on the evidence.
|
|
glastonbury beckons, so they won't make a decision just yet in case they want Rolf to make an appearance ;)
|
|
Rolf guilty on 12 charges. Good grief... I actually hoped was innocent whereas Glitter, Clifford etc were welcome to their punishments.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Mon 30 Jun 14 at 15:04
|
Wow, I'd not expected that. The jury's questions on Friday suggested they were going off on a tangent.
How will BBC respond? Will 'Two Little Boys' still get played on Pick of the Pops?
|
>> How will BBC respond? Will 'Two Little Boys' still get played on Pick of the
>> Pops?
>>
little boys don't seem to have been involved
|
I'll have to see how it maps out, but I'm going to have to alter the songbook I was compiling for the scout group. The Court of King Caratacus was made famous by him, although he didn't write it and found it in a scout songbook himself.
The Court of King Caratacus is an example of a culmative song, where the culmative part is all in the same breath. As a result, it is very hard to sing properly and calls for a high degree of breath control. Rolf was/is one of the few who could sing it properly and attempts by others usually lead to quite mirthful moments. As a result, the song was quite popular at camp fires.
|
>> I'll have to see how it maps out, but I'm going to have to alter
>> the songbook I was compiling for the scout group. The Court of King Caratacus was
>> made famous by him, although he didn't write it and found it in a scout
>> songbook himself.
You can always substitute "The Sun Has Got His Hat On".
|
You can always substitute "The Sun Has Got His Hat On".
er no. Something where original words contained:
He's been tanning n*****s out in Timbuktu
is just not acceptable to anyone these days.
Gosh, I've tripped the swear filter... Does not many brains to work out the word though.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Mon 30 Jun 14 at 18:22
|
>> You can always substitute "The Sun Has Got His Hat On".
>>
>> er no. Something where original words contained:
>> He's been tanning n*****s out in Timbuktu
Precisely. Stick with King Caratacus. I don't see why Rolf's disgrace should deprive the camp fire party.
|
>> Wow, I'd not expected that.
Me neither. Out of all the ones who've had fingers pointed at them, Id have said that Rolf was innocent.
Just goes to show.
|
>> Rolf guilty on 12 charges. Good grief...
On bail until Friday when he returns for sentence after court has considered medical etc reports. He's been warned that a jail term was "uppermost in the court's mind".
|
|
He was originally charged on additional counts of having indecent images of children on his computer. I am surmising that he pleaded guilty to those before the trial began and therefore they could not be mentioned during the trial, although no mention has been made of this today. No-one has reported that those charges were ever dropped.
|
Without explanation we've no idea what the images were. Naughty images of children range from the ones just about anyone has to the seriously evil.
Explanation of scale:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPINE_scale
Someone's grade 3 pictures can be somebody else's grade 2, but if the offending articles were grade 6 or upwards there really is no defence.
The issue of nudism in itself can mean surprisingly little in some cultures where nudism is far more socially acceptable than here.
|
>>
>> The issue of nudism in itself can mean surprisingly little in some cultures where nudism
>> is far more socially acceptable than here.
>>
Probably in a nudist colony you can be charged with having pictures of clothed people on your computer.
|
|
We'll probably know more on Friday when he's sentenced.
|
>> We'll probably know more on Friday when he's sentenced.
In the good old days they'd have put him on the next boat to Australia.
|
I think the word "surreptitious" distinguishes between 2 & 3.
Assuming the news reports that I've read are accurate, it would appear that Rolf Harris is a closet scumbag.
But I remain uncomfortable with the idea that a group of people telling a similar story is a higher level of proof than one person telling a unique story. You'd have to be pretty sure that there was no prior collusion or "steering" or even shared influence.
I do wish we had the facility for three decisions; Guilty, Not Guilty and Unproven.
|
|
Beeb today "Police review fresh claims against Rolf Harris" www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28102238
|
|
I also have a problem with the time of some charges. While I can see the reason why there is no statute of limitations here, finding someone guilty of something in the 1960s leaves a bad taste in the mouth. If one was innocent, you'd have a job recalling what you were doing instead.
|
>>
>> But I remain uncomfortable with the idea that a group of people telling a similar
>> story is a higher level of proof than one person telling a unique story. You'd
>> have to be pretty sure that there was no prior collusion or "steering" or even
>> shared influence.
I think a subtle effect of the modern age of instant communication and constant sharing of personal lives, emotions, etc is that in effect there is constant, worldwide, and unwitting "collusion" on just about everything.
I think the phenomenon is medically known, a kind of mass hysteria, previously only noticeable as sudden mystery illnesses afflicting children at a particular school.
That's not to say that any individual is actually inventing anything, just that the background of mass susceptibility seems to encourage trawling into the unknown areas of all our subconsciouses.
|
On AOL this morning:
When did he "go Wrong"? or was this early warning signs unheeded?
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/01/rolf-harris-sex-abuse_n_5546460.html
|
>> But I remain uncomfortable with the idea that a group of people telling a similar
>> story is a higher level of proof than one person telling a unique story. You'd
>> have to be pretty sure that there was no prior collusion or "steering" or even
>> shared influence.
The primary evidence is the accounts of the women he assaulted. The fact that they tell similar stories is surely corroborative in just same way as accounts of a fraudster with distinctive MO would be.
IIRC some of the early allegations against Savile, those involving inhabitants of Duncroft, turned out to have a smell of social media collusion about them and therefore lacked credibility. In the circumstances I would have thought victims would have been tested thoroughly by police for any evidence of facebook/twitter contacts about their allegations. If there was any possibility of such conduct the defence would surely have used it.
Steering by prosecutor is perhaps a possibility but if there were even a hint of it, and all evidence is disclosed, the defence would have been over it like a rash.
|
There's a sort of "collusion by proxy" about them though. All these people had apparently forgotten about the offences, until something stirred them up, 40 years later. Coincidentally, that prod to memory was publicity about the case.
Evidence of the activity of a fraudster with a distinctive MO would surely occur largely spontaneously, and the detective work would involve spotting the similarities. These yewtree cases don't seem to involve reported crimes in search of a perpetrator, rather publicity about a suspected perpetrator in search of unreported crimes.
It just feels like the wrong way round, and makes one wonder, a little.
|
>> All these people had apparently
>> forgotten about the offences, until something stirred them up, 40 years later.
Haven't read the details, but I thought (as with Saville) they just didn't feel confident of getting a positive outcome? More that they (claimed they) couldn't forget.
|
I share Cliff's concerns.
Once you start advertising for victims, there is a huge potential for a miscarriage of justice.
Statistically - there are millions of people. If one in a thousand is prepared to fabricate a complaint or embellish a story, you will have a lot of information. Then you find a case, or an MO, that fits a possibly small subset of that. In other words, what accusations have been discarded before a small number of similar complaints were taken forward?
I don't say this applies to RH* or any particular accused, but I can't help thinking about poor Sally Clarke - convicted on the basis of "what are the chances of that happening" - a lot more than was assumed, as it turned out.
*there was at least some element of 'confession' and remorse for past behaviour IIRC - I admit I haven't picked through all the reporting.
|
>> I share Cliff's concerns.
>>
>> Once you start advertising for victims, there is a huge potential for a miscarriage of
>> justice.
In a sense I agree about advertising but what happened in Yewtree is only one step forward from appeals for witnesses on 'Crimewatch'. Indeed I'm sure there are cases where that programme has produced new victims as well as just those who saw something.
The police/CPS process will filter out the chancers, fame seekers and those who's account is not quite convincing. That's one reason why the accused spent so much time on remand before they were charged. In some cases, Starr and Tarbuck are at front of my mind. The evidence such as it was, was not good enough to pass the test for reasonable prospect of conviction.
Paul Gambacini is still remanded but not charged. Who are the others?
With respect Sally Clarke is a red herring. Issue there was probability of same thing happening twice in one family. Yewtree is about similar incidents with totally unconnected people.
Mrs Clarke was convicted on the evidence of an expert on cot death who's understanding of probability was way below his knowledge of infant respiration etc. Why her defence wasn't on it at the time I don't know but now it's a cause celebre you can be pretty certain that if Harris's defence thought they could argue it they would have done.
|
>> In a sense I agree about advertising but what happened in Yewtree is only one
>> step forward from appeals for witnesses on 'Crimewatch'. Indeed I'm sure there are cases where
>> that programme has produced new victims as well as just those who saw something.
True, but also possible cause for concern.
>> The police/CPS process will filter out the chancers, fame seekers and those who's account is
>> not quite convincing. That's one reason why the accused spent so much time on remand
>> before they were charged.
That's not really the nature of the justice system, is it, which is for police/prosecution to gather as much evidence as possible to support charges? We have an adversarial system, not an inquisatorial one.
There have been cases, including some found to be miscarriages, where evidence that would have undermined the prosecution was simply ignored.
>> With respect Sally Clarke is a red herring. Issue there was probability of same thing
>> happening twice in one family. Yewtree is about similar incidents with totally unconnected people.
With respect I disagree. I used SC an an example of the intuitive acceptance, by judge, jury and defence, of the stated low probability of somebody being innocent, where there was absolutely no prospect of what we would normally call proof.
In these cases 'similarities' have been admitted as evidence of guilt (I believe there has in effect been a change of the law on this relatively recently, whether by edict, precedent or statute I can't remember).
In general with these cases there is and can be no 'proof'. What has been admitted as evidence is that if say 6 people allege they have been assaulted by X, and the events described are very similar, then the allegations if independently made MUST BE BELIEVED.
Intuitively, that might seem reasonable. But what work has been done to quantify the actual likelihood of it happening randomly, and what expert evaluation has been made as to whether that is persuasive evidence?
What is not necessarily obvious is that those odds depend on how many allegations you have to consider before finding 6 similar ones. If it is 6, then there's a case to answer. If it's 60, it doesn't look very significant at all unless the "similarities" are a whole lot more unusual than the ones listed by Smokie, above, from the summing up.
In this case we know that some alleged offences were not charged. Is that because they didn't have 'similarities'?
>>
>> Mrs Clarke was convicted ...Why her defence wasn't
>> on it at the time I don't know
Me neither. The day the verdict was announced I couldn't believe it had gone unchallenged - it was like convicting the winner of the lottery of fraud, on the grounds that at 14,000,000 to one, they couldn't possibly have won it. (that was the real point - even though Meadows got the odds wrong, it would have made no difference had he been right about that part)
but now it's a cause celebre you
>> can be pretty certain that if Harris's defence thought they could argue it they would
>> have done.
Perhaps not helpful in this particular case anyway, but in any event the law has decided apparently that similarities can be used to convict.
|
>> There's a sort of "collusion by proxy" about them though. All these people had apparently
>> forgotten about the offences, until something stirred them up, 40 years later. Coincidentally, that prod
>> to memory was publicity about the case.
I think, with respect, that shows a lack of understanding of what happened here and of wider 'sexual politics' particularly where the powerful and famous are involved. There are plenty of female writers Julie Bindel for one, who's works will explain better than I can.
If you read the reports of the victim's evidence there's no suggestion they 'forgot' anything any more than those who experience horror on the battlefield forget. Several averred that it stuck with them and at least one, probably two, put addiction/alcohol issues down at least in part to the effect of these assaults.
Their perception was that nobody would believe them. Not only was Harris famous but he had an avuncular family friendly persona that meant people were even less likely to regard allegations of sexual assault against girls and young women as plausible.
After the Savile expose it began to be suggested he was not alone in using power and fame to provide both opportunity and cover up for sexual assaults. Victims were invited to comeforward and for first time
|
>>
>> I think, with respect, that shows a lack of understanding of what happened here and
>> of wider 'sexual politics' particularly where the powerful and famous are involved.
I'm sure you are right. It's that common lack of understanding, and the fact that it's taken all these cases to start to throw some light on it, that causes a lot of people to harbour a few doubtless unfair misgivings about the process.
Not only were things different then, but our capacity to understand the changes has been slow to adapt too.
|
>> I think, with respect, that shows a lack of understanding of what happened here and
>> of wider 'sexual politics' particularly where the powerful and famous are involved.
Well perhaps where something really did happen... but it also shows a correct awareness that there may well be circumstances where no matter how many come forward nothing of a criminal nature did actually happen.
|
|
What I find disquieting is the air of triumphalism and self satisfied gloating on the part of the CPS and the police when they get a guilty verdict in these cases, but no apology to those accused when they get it spectacularly wrong and put someone through hell for months on end. Representatives from both bodies were interviewed on Today this am and the smugness they displayed was sickening.
|
>> What I find disquieting is the air of triumphalism and self satisfied gloating on the
>> part of the CPS and the police when they get a guilty verdict in these
>> cases, but no apology to those accused when they get it spectacularly wrong and put
>> someone through hell for months on end. Representatives from both bodies were interviewed on Today
>> this am and the smugness they displayed was sickening.
To be fair such statements are now routine in any high profile conviction.
I'm not sure who should be getting apologies. Le Vell and Roache were not, I think, part of Yewtree. Of the cases that are we've had two convictions (Harris and Clifford) while DLT waits re-trial on those charges jury could not agree plus others added since.
|
>>
>> To be fair such statements are now routine in any high profile conviction.
>>
Why not in high profile aquittals? You would have thought that they would celebrate the fact that a crime had not, after all, been committed.
|
>>Why not in high profile aquittals? You would have thought that they would celebrate the fact that a crime had not, after all, been committed.
Not really. It's called 'grandstanding'. They want to show off their triumphs, not their failures.
Not very dignified IMO.
|
>> >>. They want to show off their triumphs, not their failures.
>>
But it's not a failure. If Britsh justice has investigated the case, and determined that someone has not committed a crime, and required that that person be released "without a stain on his character", then that's a cause for celebration, surely?
We can all sleep easier in our beds knowing that X did not murder anyone, did not commit fraud, was not a rapist.
Conversely, why is adding one statistic to the crime figures, a triumph?
|
Did I hear something the other day about Saviles victims claiming compensation from his estate?
If his estate has, after Probate, been finalised and distributed to various beneficiaries, how could they claim from it if there was no money or assets?
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 2 Jul 14 at 14:10
|
>> Did I hear something the other day about Saviles victims claiming compensation from his estate?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27236420
|
>>Did I hear something the other day about Saviles victims claiming compensation from his estate?<<
It's sort of on hold. This link explains some of it. (Anna Raccoon).
annaraccoon.com/2014/02/23/the-cobra-and-the-mongoose/
The rest of the Savile story on that site is also worth a read.
|
>> >> >>. They want to show off their triumphs, not their failures.
>> >>
>>
>>
>> But it's not a failure. If Britsh justice has investigated the case, and determined that
>> someone has not committed a crime, and required that that person be released "without a
>> stain on his character", then that's a cause for celebration, surely?
>> We can all sleep easier in our beds knowing that X did not murder anyone,
>> did not commit fraud, was not a rapist.
>>
>> Conversely, why is adding one statistic to the crime figures, a triumph?
I'm looking at it from their point of view, as they are. A monster prosecution with no conviction isn't a triumph for them.
They shouldn't be doing blatant PR either way.
Their job is to prosecute, the purpose of which is to bring the guilty to justice.
Unfortunately it now seems standard for agencies in the public sector to do this. It's in the same category as local authorities spending public money to distribute 'newspapers' saying what a good job they are doing - they are hardly likely to report their cock-ups.
The business I worked for had a run in with a regulator. I won't go into detail, but in short they asked us to change some perfectly legal documentation. We agreed to amend it as we had better things to do, even though we disagreed and even had counsel's opinion that we were fully compliant with relevant laws. Our reward for doing the right thing was a completely unnecessary press release to say we had stopped cheating customers and what a good job they had done (I paraphrase, but not much).
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 2 Jul 14 at 13:49
|
Zoe Williams has an article in the Guardian about perceptions of Harris etc.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/02/rolf-harris-pantomime-act
From the third paragraph on she makes the point some here seem to miss about how victims really behave compared to how we think they should. A recommended read.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 2 Jul 14 at 09:21
|
It's a very badly worded 3rd paragraph. On first reading it sounds as if Starmer was saying all those things. Then reading more carefully it gradually emerges that he he was (probably) saying was that everything he was saying was a kind of quotation from the bad old days, ie was of course saying exactly the opposite.
But that's really what I was getting at in my last post. Not only did they do things differently in the past, but appreciation of how victims behaved was different. Also, perhaps, victims behaved differently too?
It all adds up to a vague sense of slight misgiving about the validity of judging past actions in terms of present day standards.
And of course changing standards is not an inexorable one-way process. One day our own standards will be critically judged by another generation. The paradoxical dual trend towards both moral laxity and smug enforcement of standards is only a cycle - one day it will surely swing back again.
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Wed 2 Jul 14 at 09:36
|
>> Zoe Williams has an article in the Guardian about perceptions of Harris etc.
Fair point about the way victims behave, but not exactly new; and it's not necessary to doubt that there are genuine victims in order to believe that others make things up.
Not sure what the rest of it is about - it's pretty obvious that RH's public persona was not that of a child molester.
Is she going to follow up with a list of hitherto undiagnosed celebs that should be arrested and interrogated, based on their guileless behaviour to date, or does she expect someone else to do it?
|
|
Sounded like the ramblings of an amateur psychologist, badly written and with no other conclusion than that it was the writer saying", look at me - how clever I am in hindsight"
|
>> ramblings of an amateur psychologist, badly written and with no other conclusion than that it was the writer saying", look at me - how clever I am
Looked pretty sensible to me, if hastily written. There's a very arresting photo in it of Harris and Savile sitting together somewhere, to me very eloquent indeed... slime creatures...
|
I suspect that in retrospect any photograph of anybody can be made to mean whatever you want it to mean.
If he looks sinister, obviously he was.
If he looks like a nice kindly old man - well that just goes to show how careful you have to be.
The more you are taken in at the time, the greater your sense of outrage when he is unmasked.
|
>> any photograph of anybody can be made to mean whatever you want it to mean.
If he looks sinister, obviously he was.
I don't misinterpret photos often CP. I know about all that from the inside, a bit.
More and more people are shiftily claiming that they always thought there was something dodgy about Savile. All I can say it that the acclaim for the man was almost universal for a very long time. I am unusual in having found him false, bullying and thuggish right from the start. The quite recent revelations about sex offences didn't surprise me in the least. Of course no one actually liked the man. They just felt they ought to pretend to because everyone else seemed to. Useful idiots and hypocritical swine.
Take another look at that photo. Any fool can see from that mug that Savile is a very, very nasty person. And Rolf Harris fits right in. They are having a chortle together. Over some innocent little quip no doubt. Tchah!
|
I think the only thing that I can see from that photo is that Harris looks relaxed in Saville's company.
Could be because he actually was comfortable. Which given Saville's personality is worrying.
Could be because he was pretending (clearly something he has practice in).
I don't think I can see more than that.
Since Harris's habit would appear to be young girls, I guess there's no reason why males or older females would pick up on it unless it was obvious, other than perhaps vague feelings of "offness".
Saville, on the other hand, was a slime ball to all.
|
>> >> I am unusual in having found him false, bullying
>> and thuggish right from the start.
>>
I think quite a lot of people thought him pretty vile (hence the old joke I pointed out earlier in this thread or its predecessors, calling him Jimmy So-vile).
Someone moderately senior in the BBC came to one of our parties in about 1981, and I do remember a general conversation about Saville's unpleasantness.
But I don't remember anyone at the time going so far as to even hint at what has now been revealed. It was just a widespread impression that he was not very nice, and certainly not the lovable character he was presented as.
But possibly groupie behaviour was just accepted as the norm. I do remember for example the disapproving assumptions that were current about the reputation of a neighbour's daughter who was one of Pan's People.
|
>>Zoe Williams
>> A recommended read.
Hardly. Its a bitter piece with little content beyond wanting to be seen on a soapbox. Probably written at the last minute to fill a gap and meet a deadline.
|
>>
>> Hardly. Its a bitter piece with little content beyond wanting to be seen on a
>> soapbox. Probably written at the last minute to fill a gap and meet a deadline.
>>
Agreed.
It's a nothing article telling us what any sane person knows already - people aren't always what they seem.
|
>> telling us what any sane person knows already - people aren't always what they seem.
Yes, it's hastily written and says nothing new. But what's 'bitter' about it? You mean the author's hostile to nonces for some private undisclosed reason of her own? Or what?
|
The most disturbing thing about this whole Yewtree business is how we've swung from believing nothing complainants of abuse say to believing everything they say, hence some of the ridiculous numbers being quoted re Savile's indiscretions.
We've been on this planet long enough now to realise we should park the pendulum somewhere near the middle.
|
|
I think that's what got a lot of these guys in trouble in the first place RR...
|
>> park the pendulum
>> I think that's what got a lot of these guys in trouble in the first place RR.
Dick-dock sort of thing Humph?
|
|
Sounds unpleasantly like sharia law to me.
|
I had no idea that Savile was a nonce.
I thought his TV persona was utterly vile, self-centred, cynical, vulgar and overweening in his smugness.
I occasionally watched him, as the Jim'll Fixit stuff was entertainment directed at the age my daughter was at the time.
There are a goodly number of current TV "personalities" who, in my no doubt jaundiced view, fall into precisely the same category of awfulness.
|
|
I met Jimmy Savile in the 1980s when we both ran the Wilmslow half marathon- along with thousands of other nutters. He was cussing and swearing and surrounded by a rather unsavoury bunch of minders. I was unimpressed.
|
Quoted from an interview with Jimmy Savile in the Independent after he received his K in 1990, and in hindsight very telling -
"What he says about tabloid journalists is true. There has been a persistent rumour about him for years, and journalists have often told me as a fact: “Jimmy Savile? Of course, you know he’s into little girls.” But if they know it, why haven’t they published it? The Sun or the News of the World would hardly refuse the chance of featuring a Jimmy Savile sex scandal. It is very, very hard to prove a negative, but the fact that the tabloids have never come up with a scintilla of evidence against Jimmy Savile is as near proof as you can ever get.
I wasn’t sure whether Sir James actually knew what the particular skeleton in his closet was supposed to be, though I notice that he told The Sun five years ago that he never allowed children into his flat. “Never in a million years would I dream of letting a kid, or five kids, past my front door. Never, ever. I’d feel very uncomfortable.” Nor, he said, would he take children for a ride in his car unless they had their mum or dad with them: “You just can’t take the risk.”
Still, I was nervous when I told him: “What people say is that you like little girls.” He reacted with a flurry of funny-voice Jimmy Savile patter, which is what he does when he’s getting his bearings: “Ah now. Sure. Now then. Now then. First of all, I happen to be in the pop business, which is teenagers – that’s No 1. So when I go anywhere it’s the young ones that come round me.
“Now what the tabloids don’t realise is that the young girls in question don’t gather round me because of me – it’s because I know the people they love, the stars, because they know I saw Bros last week or Wet Wet Wet. Now you, watching from afar, might say ‘Look at those young girls throwing themselves at him’, whereas in actual fact it’s exactly the opposite. I am of no interest to them, except in a purely platonic way."
Now if it was widely known about Savile's taste in females by the tabloid hacks, failure to follow it up says as much about them as it does about the man himself. Piers Morgan, during an interview with Tony Blackburn said he had no idea about JS while he was editor of the Mirror and I thought then his tone didn't sound very convincing, particularly as it has been said that a Mirror journalist had a story on Savile spiked some years back because the alleged victims would not sign the statements they made out of fear.
I suppose his wealth and connections meant he wasn't the easy target the tabs normally like to pursue.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Thu 3 Jul 14 at 20:09
|
Forgive me if I've missed it above other than the hints but today is the first time I've read the facts of what was found on Harris's computer back in 2012 (I assume when he was first arrested).
Sadly it appears to confirm this was no misunderstood cuddly uncle figure.
Ghastly for all concerned.
|
|
It was reported in the press at the time, and my recollection was that they arrested him once and found the material, and when they went back a second time there was more...
|
|
And it explains his answer to one of the questions he was asked during his trial about whether he was aware of his alleged 13 year old victim's sexual attractiveness. Anyone denying the offence of assaulting her would have said no, but as the judge would have been aware of these images on his computer even though the jury were not told he had no option but to say yes.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Fri 4 Jul 14 at 11:20
|
I only remembered about the discovery of images when it was mentioned on here recently. I'd forgotten about that. You can see why our justice system is right to stop reporting on this and letting the jury know etc. Otherwise they'd not find him guilty based on the evidence.
Then again, had you known about this evidence it isn't such a surprise he had done what he had either I suppose.
You can also see why he was prosecuted for the indecent assaults first. Had he been done for possession/looking at these images, how could this have been such a fair trial.
I only hope the sentencing takes into account of this other offence. Although I would imagine he'd be sentenced for a fairly long time anyway and no point wasting more tax payers money.
I heard on the radio just now his defence lawyer using Rolf's wife's health to justify a more lenient sentence. Something about him being sole carer... Well he'll have to spend some of his £11m fortune on caring for her.
|
|
As I understand from report in Guardian they're dropping the charges involving the pictures on computer. Too difficult to prove the girls (who are Ukrainians), albeit posing as young teens, were not actually over 18.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 4 Jul 14 at 12:39
|
>> As I understand from report in Guardian they're dropping the charges involving the pictures on
>> computer.
BBC says the same thing
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28140334
Prosecutors meanwhile say Harris will not stand trial over allegations he downloaded sexual images of children.
They claimed Harris had indecent images of children, as part of a larger collection of adult pornography, but decided it was not in the public interest to prosecute him.
|
|
Not defending Harris for one moment, but i read that the reason the prosecution was not in the public interest was that the website(s) provided age details of the models concerned, and apparently whatever Harris thought he was doing [downloading underage porn], he actually wasn't.
|
Operation Yewtree - Volume 21 - Falkirk Bairn
