Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST Date: 20 Nov 13 - 07:15 PM Matt, re your comment "The post above seems to be dangerously close to suggesting that, even if he's guilty of it, there are circumstances in which that could be considered acceptable, or a least retrospectively considered acceptable "back in the 70s". I am NOT suggesting anything of the kind. I also stated that it's a good thing that victims are able to speak out and abuse is brought to light. I have personally known 2 victims of abuse/incest, one of whom ended up not wanting any kind of sexual contact with men, the other one ending up committing suicide. So I do not condone abuse, or under age sex, at any time or in any era. My main point is I think a distinction should be made between being physically attracted to an adolescent/teenage girl who, in the biological sense, has begun to mature into a woman, and being sexually attracted to children. And there is a difference between feeling attracted to some-one and acting on it. Even back in the seventies, my parents may have been okay with what the local reporter had written, but there was no way they would have allowed me to be in any situation where an adult male could have actually had any sexual contact with me. My Dad in particular was very protective of me in that respect. Which in turn raises a question in Roy Harper's case, regarding the alleged victim. Where were the girls' parents at the time this abuse was supposed to have taken place? What were they thinking, allowing a twelve year old to spend time alone with an adult male? This is assuming the alleged abuse took place on the farm he had at the time, and not at gigs - where I think it's highly unlikely a 12 year old would have been able to attend, unaccompanied. As for the song, I agree the lyrics can be interpreted as a graphic description of sexual relations between an adult male and a thirteen year old. But I dont think that proves that the Roy Harper, as the writer, was literally having those thoughts about a real thirteen year old, let alone acting on them. A case in point is Kate Bush's "Infant Kiss" - also written in the first person: "What is this? An infant kiss That sends my body tingling? I've never fallen for A little boy before. No control. Just a kid and just at school. Back home they'd call me dirty. His little hand is on my heart. He's got me where it hurts me. Knock, knock. Who's there in this baby? You know how to work me. All my barriers are going. It's starting to show. Let go. Let go. Let go." Sounds pretty damning also, and that she could be 'next on the list'...until you discover, as I did recently via another forum where this is being discussed, that this song is actually written from the point of view of a fictional character in a story, where a governess is being haunted by the ghost of a man who takes posession of the child. It's based on the film 'The Innocents' which in turn is based on the novel "The Turn of the Screw" That puts it in a completely different light. In the case of 'Forbidden Fruit' Roy Harper may well be likewise creating an imaginary scenario expressing a fantasy about a fictitious character. Artist's have always expressed the darker aspects of human nature and the sub-conscious through songs, literature and art. It concerns me that there could be a form of censorship creeping in with this, and we could end up reverting to a Victorian society dominated by repression and denial, where at the same time all kinds of unsavoury things take place 'in secret' - bearing in mind that this was an era when not only abuse, but child prostitution went on, underneath the veneer of respectabiliity. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge Date: 19 Nov 13 - 09:26 AM ...to be cont. ......`is copy book now and that`s it for `im." I said, "Don`t you believe it Matt. We live in a society where vile and un-acceptable behaviour is rewarded by the media with a path to paid "celebrity" status". `e said, "Watcha mean?". I said, "Russel Brand, Johnathon Woss, Chris Huhne and `is old woman for starters!!" Whaddam I Like?? |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge Date: 19 Nov 13 - 09:18 AM I `ad that Matt Milton in my cab this morning. `e`d just been on E-Bay flogging off all `is "blue" books records. Feeling a bit vulnerable ,I `spose. I said, "Morning Matt. I saw your two-pennyworth on that Mudcat this morning. I reckon you might be a bit mistaken regarding Roy `arper`s career going tits up." `e said, " Nah, Jim. `e`s blotted |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Jack Blandiver Date: 19 Nov 13 - 08:40 AM What Roy Harper wrote or sang in a song has no bearing on whether or not he is guilty of child abuse. However revolting or creepy the song's lyrics might be. I don't think anyone here has said that have they? I hope not. As far as I was concerned his career was over when I heard that song in '74 when I was 13 myself and found it deeply unacceptable even by my somewhat feral sexual standards of the time (I even skipped a track on Wish You Were Here because he sang on it; now I'm happy that I have the 'Experience' edition where I can hear Roger Waters' vocal as is only right and proper - I like my Floyd as a hermetically sealed gang o' 4, Dick Parry notwithstanding...) His sleeve note and justification in the MM interview make it all the more noxious but its bearing on the present sensation is coincidental & unfortunate despite his claims that Forbidden Fruit is '...an absolute admission...'. Personally, I'd make it a law that the press could only report on such cases after the conviction. If there is no conviction, then there is no story - simples! If he is found innocent you can bet the retraction won't meet with Hacked Off's standards. Even if the press retracted on the front page, it's not going to help restore his reputation - but then again neither's Forbidden Fruit and its related commentaries. Thing is though, if he was truly guilty of such crimes, would he have made so public a statement about them? I'd like to think not, but then again Jimmy Savile was goosing and groping young girls (incuding a Nolan!) in full view of the nation on TOTP with the alleged approval of everyone in the BBC, so who can say? |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST,matt milton Date: 19 Nov 13 - 07:24 AM What Roy Harper wrote or sang in a song has no bearing on whether or not he is guilty of child abuse. However revolting or creepy the song's lyrics might be. Roy Harper's been accused on nine counts of sexually assaulting the same girl, beginning when she was 12. The post above seems to be dangerously close to suggesting that, even if he's guilty of it, there are circumstances in which that could be considered acceptable, or a least retrospectively considered acceptable "back in the 70s". This is all academic now anyway. Even if Roy Harper is pronounced innocent, his career is over. Can you really see any UK festivals booking him ever again? Can you really see any record labels wanting to put out new material? From that point of view, that odious song suddenly becomes relevant. Nobody's gonna touch him with a bargepole now. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST,Merlina Date: 18 Nov 13 - 09:19 PM When I was thirteen and helped out a local film festival my Dad was organising, I got a mention in a write up by a local journalist as the 'luscious piece in hotpants'. My parents reacted by showing me the article hoping it help me overcome my feelings of self consciousness and feel more confident about the way I looked. And yet in this day and age, and in the current social climate, the parents would more likely sue the newspaper. Of course it's a good thing that abuse is brought to light and victims are able to speak out and that it's no longer acceptable to reduce women to objects. But I think maybe it's gone too far and turned into a kind of paranoid obsession in present ay society. Roy is being a lot more explicit in this song than that local reporter - but I do think he has a point when he says it's what most men really feel and he's just being more honest about it. Feeling an attraction to or admiring a young female is still not the same as actually abusing them or having unlawful sex with them, and there is a difference between a young teenager in the process of becoming a woman, and a child. I think, going by what he said in the interview, it may well have been partly him putting the V's up to Mary Whitehouse and her attempts at the time to control and censor any portrayal of sex. Perhaps his only crime is being frank and honest about his feelings and desires, in a society that is becoming increasingly Orwellian and with 'thought police' and 'double think'. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Big Al Whittle Date: 18 Nov 13 - 05:49 PM do a runner roy. no sense in doing an Oscar wilde. roy harper you'd better scarper they're bleeding fascists mate you're a humdinger folksinger so bugger off don't wait! |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST Date: 18 Nov 13 - 04:44 PM >>I have no information and no opinion on this particular case, but would just point out one reason why such accusations are sometimes made many years after the alleged event(s): when there are false memories resulting from "therapy" sessions. And here's another reason: because idiots like you walk into a court room with preconceived ideas. Would you care to provide some sort of intelligent citation for your bullshit assertion? |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Jack Blandiver Date: 18 Nov 13 - 08:49 AM dare we mention Lolita & Vladimir Nabokov? That debate ain't dead yet! Lolita was mentioned somewhere above there and sensibly ignored. But seeing you mentioned it again, here's a few words extracted from something I wrote elsewhere in relation to the present issue... The kind of complex literary fiction that Nabokov was dealing with in Lolita (the story of two paedophiles destroying each other over their respective psychotic obsessions with an underage nymphet) is of a very different order to the entirely un-contextualised misogynistic first-hand reportage of an erotic relationship with a child in the idiom of MOR folk song that Roy Harper gives us in Forbidden Fruit. Unlike Harper's song, Lolita is NOT a pamphlet to the cause of paedophilia - it is an account in the name of Art that does more to raise the awareness of such issues than it does to give pleasure to perverts. Its outcomes & tensions are very clear - something which Humbert's harrowing inner dialogue makes abundantly clear throughout, contrasting with Quilty's unrepentant amorality for which he ultimately welcomes Humbert as his executioner. This is not to forgive Humbert - his inner dialogue is unambiguously psychotic - something he is all too aware of. His fate is that of a criminal writing his 'goodnight ballad', perhaps accepting that his real crimes are going unpunished. Forbidden Fruit is pure pornography - it is born from misogynistic objectification of a young girl by an adult male who sees her purely as a means for a sexual gratification which to him is a short lived pleasure, but to the victim will be a trauma from which she'll never recover (something she has in common with Lolita). That it glorifies that much in the sleeve-note makes both it and its author all the more noxious. In Harper's own words: 'And then there's Forbidden Fruit the thirteen-year-old-girl thing. I'm a Lewis Carroll freak, basically I love to watch things like Alice in Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass. I'm into the beauty of the young female, and the older I get, the more fascinated I become. That's probably true of most men, but I'm totally honest about it. That song's an absolute admission if you like. I mean I'm a great man for women, full stop, but let's not get hung up here. Let's just say that Forbidden Fruit is way way over the top of Mrs Mary Whitehouse.' (Roy Harper interview in Melody Maker, 1974) |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Mr Red Date: 18 Nov 13 - 08:01 AM dare we mention Lolita & Vladimir Nabokov? That debate ain't dead yet! |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST,Brimbacombe Date: 18 Nov 13 - 07:27 AM As others have said, Harper is innocent until proven guilty, and the woman involved deserves to be treated with respect. For those questioning why she 'left it so long' to come forward, I'd suggest reading the (most recent) autobiography of rugby union player Brian Moore in which he talks about his experiences of being sexually abused as a boy by one of his teachers, and why it took him to long to reveal what happened. Each case is, of course, unique and has its own set of complexities, but if a man of Moore's fearsome reputation can still be frightened in adulthood of a this person, then you see what such abuse can do to someone psychologically. None of which makes Harper guilty, of course. I just think there's a mindset in this country that if someone doesn't report a crime immediately, then it didn't happen. The Savile case shows the flaw in this mindset, but it still happens. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Jack Blandiver Date: 18 Nov 13 - 06:54 AM Dead God Thank heaven for little accidental typos! |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Jack Blandiver Date: 18 Nov 13 - 06:32 AM Photographs yes, eroticised no, fantasised (in Harper's sense) definitely not. God knows what was going on in the depths of the Carrollian psyche, but whatever it was stayed well down in the depths. Hmmmmm. The jury's still out on this one, but the photographs tell it differently; they are eroticised in every sense of the erotic. Pornographic? Maybe not. Fantasised? Most certainly. The classic picture of Alice-as-Beggar-Maid dressed in off-the-shoulder rags is evidence enough. * I've never seen Thank Heaven for Little Girls as all that dodgy myself; contrary to paedophiliac fantasy, it celebrates the fact that sexuality only comes through maturity and that the appeal of little girls can only be truly appreciated by little boys. Far more repugnant is Gilbert O'Sullivan's vomit-inducing Clair (aaah!) - not quite Forbidden Fruit but, Dead God, not far off. Contrast & compare with Matt Berry's Song for Rosie from his 2009 neo-folk/prog masterpiece 'Witchazel' (...an album about the horrors of the countryside...) which is the only sort of thing adults should be singing about kids - i.e. brimful with parental love & responsibility to the sanctity of innocence. * No one here is finding anyone guilty of anything other than writing a piece of paedoerotic reportage of having sex with a 13-year-old-girl and justifying it in interview (Melody Maker, 1974) as being '...an absolute admission...'. * As for him being a folk singer, on weighing up the above evidence and his general place in the singer-songwriter canon, as well as the nature of the music that passes for Folk here on Mudcat & elsewhere, then yes, absolutely, Roy Harper is indeed a Folk Singer. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST,michaelr Date: 18 Nov 13 - 02:16 AM Reminds me of the film where Gerard Depardieu takes his teenage daughter on holiday and she tells everyone he's her lover... then he plays the lounge piano and sings "Thank heaven for little girls". Perfectly innocent, but everyone walks out on him. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Big Al Whittle Date: 17 Nov 13 - 07:55 PM yes indeed Craig Douglas - when my little girl is smiling - evidence enough for me! |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: The Sandman Date: 17 Nov 13 - 04:07 PM Roy Harper, has not been tried yet. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: pavane Date: 17 Nov 13 - 03:35 PM Someone i know personally has just been acquitted of such charges despite several separate independant victims testifying. We know of many more who didn't become involved, and that he lied consstently in court. The prosecution didn't cross-examine, just took his answers. If we can find the pictures which are alleged to be out there, maybe we can nail him. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Richard Mellish Date: 17 Nov 13 - 02:00 PM I have no information and no opinion on this particular case, but would just point out one reason why such accusations are sometimes made many years after the alleged event(s): when there are false memories resulting from "therapy" sessions. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: MGM·Lion Date: 16 Nov 13 - 10:44 PM Quite ~~ but it wasn't 'his' work in that instance, was it?; and performers are beside the point, obviously, or any actor playing a murderer on a cop show is going to be in dead trouble! Your point was merely confusing, however 'rhetorical', rather than enlightening. ~M~ |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Uncle Tone Date: 16 Nov 13 - 07:36 PM "Maurice Chevalier didn't write "Thank Heaven for little girls": just sang it from the script of Gigi." I didn't say he did. I asked a rhetorical question to point out the nonsense of identifying a writer or performer with their work. Tone |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST Date: 16 Nov 13 - 07:08 PM Mick Jagger is a folk singer. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Phil Edwards Date: 16 Nov 13 - 05:31 PM In 35 years of playing them in folk clubs and festivals, nobody has tried telling me they weren't folk songs Has anyone ever told anyone that what they were doing was "not folk"? I asked this once before, on an open thread for anyone to come up with examples of the Folk Police in action; nobody did. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: MGM·Lion Date: 16 Nov 13 - 04:02 PM Guest ~~ You didn't write Stackolee. Tone ~~ Maurice Chevalier didn't write "Thank Heaven for little girls": just sang it from the script of Gigi. So not really comparable. Not offering any comment on the topic of the thread. Just saying... |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST,Doc John Date: 16 Nov 13 - 02:51 PM Lewis Carroll is an interesting case: it is usually said that he was only at ease with children and found adult relationships difficult. However if you look at some of the photographs that he took they include the famous - like Tennyson - and even royals; this does not seem to fit in with a man who is only at ease with children. It has been said in recent times that his family put out the 'only at ease with children' tale to hide his relationships with adult women; friendship with children was quite acceptable in those times but not with female adults as an bachelor don and ordained deacon. This situation has now reversed and the attempt to whitewash backfired rather. Interesting thought. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 16 Nov 13 - 02:11 PM Regarding the "folksinger/not folksinger" question. Some 40 years ago I - and a few friends - went to see Roy at the Liverpool Phil, and we had a chat with him before the concert. One of our group happened to mention that the Taverners Club in Blackpool had decided not to book him anymore because they considered that he was no longer a folksinger. Roy was much amused by this, and mentioned it during the concert. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST Date: 16 Nov 13 - 12:30 PM He is a folk singer not like hitler's horse |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST,Musket curious Date: 16 Nov 13 - 11:52 AM Someone has been charged. He denies it. So "wait and see" seems to be the order of the day. He is an excellent singer/ songwriter and I have a number of his songs in my repertoire. In 35 years of playing them in folk clubs and festivals, nobody has tried telling me they weren't folk songs. Possibly because they are. ... |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST,Rev Bayes Date: 16 Nov 13 - 09:38 AM canalwheeler, why a victim chooses to report or not report something is entirely up to them and there are good reasons they may choose not to report or may delay reporting for long periods. Such delays have no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of their allegations. Innocent until proven guilty, yes, but anyone making an allegation also has the right to be treated with respect. And, people, please bear in mind that since he has been charged there are rules on what can and cannot be said. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST,Jack Campin Date: 16 Nov 13 - 07:32 AM Humphrey Carpenter's book "Secret Gardens" has quite a bit about Carroll's psyche. He doesn't come across as a paedophile pornographer. I hadn't come across "Forbidden Fruit" before. Even more inexplicable than Harper writing it: how come he found an audience for it? What kind of listener would pay money to hear it? |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Mr Red Date: 16 Nov 13 - 06:48 AM Most pundits who study the Rev Charles Lutwidge Dodgson agree there were repressed feelings. Mostly from interpreting his literature. FWIW I would not include Roy Harper in the "Folk" camp - he is a singer songwriter and Folkies can include such - happily. But that don't make him Folk. We decide that and we can't agree --- I submit. Case "not proven" unlike the impending court case will be. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Phil Edwards Date: 16 Nov 13 - 06:34 AM Photographs yes, eroticised no, fantasised (in Harper's sense) definitely not. God knows what was going on in the depths of the Carrollian psyche, but whatever it was stayed well down in the depths. As for reading anything into the lyrics, if somebody wrote a really good murder ballad I'd think that person was in touch with their own violent impulses. And if somebody writes about persuading a thirteen-year-old girl to give him a hand-job (and then acknowledges that it's a fantasy of his), I never ever want that person anywhere near my daughter. He may be entirely, totally, whiter than the driven snow innocent of acting on these fantasies. I think he's guilty of being a creep, though. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Jack Blandiver Date: 16 Nov 13 - 05:49 AM Lewis Carroll is a complete red herring - there's no evidence he had sexual fantasies about the girls he befriended And eroticised in naked photographs.... |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Uncle Tone Date: 16 Nov 13 - 05:23 AM .... not even Bruce Forsyth? Tone |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST Date: 16 Nov 13 - 05:13 AM Agreed. Innocent until proved guilty, what do we know? And apropos song lyrics, I often sing Stackolee but have never, as far as I can recall, shot anybody on a dance floor. Or felt any particular desire to do so. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Uncle Tone Date: 16 Nov 13 - 05:08 AM Is Ian Anderson Aqualung? Did he invent Cross-eyed Mary? Was Maurice Chevalier a paedo? You can't judge a person by their song lyrics any more than you can judge a fiction writer or poet by their observations or inventions. One has to wonder, if these allegations have any truth in them at all, why the victim(s) have waited this long to make them. Jumping on the bandwagon? Seeking financial compensation in an out-of-court settlement? Is anyone in the public eye safe? I bet there are a rake of ex-pop group members hoping that their under-age groupies don't come creeping out of the woodwork. Operation Yewtree and its spawnings reminds me of McCarthyism. Innocent until proven guilty. Agreed absolutely. Tone |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Will Fly Date: 16 Nov 13 - 04:12 AM I've never cared for Roy Harper or his music - and recall, in the days when several of us drank in the "North Star" in Finchley, that he was known rather disparagingly as "the Mini Pop Star". However - once again no-one knows the facts, so comment on this case is pointless. As for the lyrics of songs being a pointer to the character of the songwriter, has no-one heard of a writer inhabiting a character he or she has created - a character which bears no relation to the writer? There are many songwriters who employ this device - Randy Newman being archetype. Newman isn't a redneck, isn't a dwarf hater, etc. - just uses and inhabits these characters temporarily to make a point. Trial by online forum is a pretty pointless exercise either way. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Acorn4 Date: 16 Nov 13 - 03:50 AM Apparently Roy Harper has denied all the charges. Just a case of wait and see. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Phil Edwards Date: 15 Nov 13 - 07:02 PM Whether thirteen-year-olds are pre-pubescent or not is a bit of a side issue - they're too damn young for grown men to be drooling over. Speaking as the father of a thirteen-year-old girl, I think "Forbidden Fruit" was beyond the pale - and Harper didn't exactly help matters by saying that these were in fact his fantasies. (Lewis Carroll is a complete red herring - there's no evidence he had sexual fantasies about the girls he befriended, some of whom were still corresponding with him after they'd grown up.) Having said that, fantasy is fantasy, and we don't yet know what, if anything, he's actually done. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Nov 13 - 06:10 PM I never much liked Harper (not folk, you see) but the 13 years reference is not as cited and it's all rather part of the fantasy of the era - Donovan's "Mellow Yellow" and "Photeen" and "Honeybunch" from the Oz mag. Etc. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Jack Campin Date: 15 Nov 13 - 05:48 PM This is an interesting case for the media's perception of "what is folk". I expected it might be like the way athletes in British media tend to be Scottish when they lose and British when they win, but it's a bit more random than that. Headline labels applied in news stories about this event: Independent: "influential rock singer" Huffington Post: folk singer" ABC News: "folk singer" Mirror: "folk star" Sky: no label but "said to have influenced rock band Led Zeppelin" Spin (who they?): "folk legend" BBC: "folk singer" Mail Online: "Singer-songwriter, 72, who performed with Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin" but in the text "Celebrated folk musician" NME: "folk singer" Rolling Stone: "English folk singer who sang with Pink Floyd and influenced Led Zeppelin" Standard: "folk singer" Pitchfork (who?): "influential folk artist" CTV News (Canada): "British folk singer" news.com.au: "UK singer" The Australian: "UK singer" Perhaps there's an element of "never mind the genre, he's a Pom so what do you expect" in the last two. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST,CS Date: 15 Nov 13 - 05:39 PM The charge is of molesting a girl from twelve years old. Forbidden Fruit (written when Harper was 32) is about enticing a thirteen year old "little girl" away from her "mummy" to "play secret games" with him. It's not proof, but the language is explicitly paedophilic. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: selby Date: 15 Nov 13 - 05:33 PM I though that the tenant of the law in the UK was innocent until proved guilty.Although I do not rate the bloke, that rule should apply, I am not comfortable with trial by media in all its forms, for anyone, due process should punish or not as the case may be. Keith |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Nov 13 - 05:14 PM 1. Craig Douglas? 2. 13 years old pre-pubescent? You need to get out more. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST,kenny Date: 15 Nov 13 - 04:23 PM Agree with the 2 posts above. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Nick Date: 15 Nov 13 - 04:06 PM Has anyone done Nabokov for writing Lolita yet? My view as on facebook is that - aside from how hard it is to sing 'I Hate the White Man' in Yorkshire without people misinterpreting it (it must be the flowery 60's writing) - I thought that people were supposed to be presumed innocent until pronounced guilty - Sally Bercow's libel damages point to that. Craig Douglas was a rapist for a while until he wasn't. Personally, I have never understood the attraction of pre-pubescent girls or the need to want to start a relationship with one. So if he is guilty - and until then not - he deserves to pay for what he has done. How is it that people have such certainty without any facts? |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: The Sandman Date: 15 Nov 13 - 03:47 PM innocent until proved guilty. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Dave Hanson Date: 15 Nov 13 - 03:35 PM He should have been put on a charge for that 20 minute introduction to his song at the Folk Awards. Dave H |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Elmore Date: 15 Nov 13 - 03:34 PM Not a folk singer to me, but I,m not the folk police. Never heard of him. Played a couple of his videos on You Tube. Sounded pretty good. Doesn't mean he's not a perv. |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: GUEST Date: 15 Nov 13 - 03:26 PM "West Mercia Police said the offences are alleged to have been committed in Herefordshire between 1975 and 1977 and relate to one victim." |
Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged From: Jack Blandiver Date: 15 Nov 13 - 03:16 PM Tax fraud in the folk world? Chance would be a fine thing! Oh, I'm forgetting, he's not a Folk Singer... |
Share Thread: |