Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges

Subject: Rolf Harris
From: GUEST,Leadbelly
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 07:37 AM

"TV presenter Rolf Harris has been charged with nine counts of indecent assault and four of making indecent images of children, police have said." BBC News.
Another Jimmy Savile?

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: Nick
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 07:50 AM

No mention of bondage and Australian marsupials, though. Perhaps that will come up later.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 07:53 AM

I once saw hos photo on the front of a knitting pattern.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 08:05 AM

Innocent until proven, I believe.

I still support Rolf...and I feel there is something very, VERY wrong about these allegations against him.

The Foul Ones are all over Facebook about this, especially on his main page. I've written to whoever runs it to suggest they de-activate it for the time being, rather than let these hateful people do what they are doing...

'sexual assault' covers many things, from the bad to the barely noticeable. You cannot judge how we all lived 40 years ago with how so many live today, ready to accuse men of anything at the merest touch.

With regard to the photos of children, again, none of us know anything about this and this is not linked to the original two women from decades back, but to a very recent moment in time, apparently. And again, none of us have seen the photos, nor know why they came into being. There may be a perfectly innocent story behind this charge...

I truly don't know....neither does anyone else.

I know this though, that I have heard so many stories of love and support for Rolf, of deep kindness and genuine concern, of people whose lives he touched in goodness, who have nothing but praise and love for this man.

He brought joy into my life as a child and he did the same for my children.

He's on record, ages back, as saying he suffers from deep depression at times, long before any of this happened...

And please, just think on this...I took photos of my children sploshing around in the bath, naked, when they were small. I have exactly the same kind of photos of me as a little girl taken by my parents, but...BUT...it wasn't very long ago that someone was reported to the police for taking such photos of their own children, by some politically correct, messed-up idiot, who deemed such photos to be paedophilic...(and no, i don't care if I've just made that word up.)

I stand by Rolf Harris in every way possible...and also, please remember that one of these women made exactly the same kind of allegation against another person, but withdrew that shortly after.

Tell me, if she was telling the truth, why would she have withdrawn that allegation?

I also seem to have it in my mind that these two women may know each other...and live in Australia....but I could be wrong about that..

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: GUEST,Silas
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 08:33 AM

Lizzie, you seem quite happy to defend Harris' innocence without any knowledge of the facts, yet seem equally happy to cast slurs and innuendo at his alledged victims.

How about putting you brain into gear before logging on?

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 08:33 AM

So, Rolf Harris is OK but Jimmy Saville is a monster even though neither have been to trial?

How so?

Court of Lizzie the mighty I expect.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 08:52 AM

I very much hope it turns out that Rolf Harris is not guilty. Until proceedings have finished, one way or another, I suggest it would be a good idea to turn our attention to things about which we know something.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 08:59 AM

Oh, for GOODNESS sake!!

You can't compare Rolf Harris to Jimmy Savile, Dave..and to do is just *awful*

Savile, who turned my blood cold even when I was a teenager, was a predatory, persistent, sociopathic, sexual abuser and rapist...He had NO conscience whatsoever!

Good God, I used to have my bottom pinched on the London Underground several times a month, but I NEVER thought of those men as sexual abusers! Naughty fellas, yes, but I didn't go into a dark decline over it, nor want them jailed, nor taken down, down, deeper and down...

Men used to wolfwhistle at me and I LOVED it...even though I was shy, it cheered me up no end..and when I smiled back at them, it cheered their day up too...

Now, if a man DARES to wolfwhistle, he'd probably find himself being charged and shown the cells...

This is insanity!

I was raised in the time of The Carry On Films, Dick Emery and Top of The Pops, when folks DID used to touch each other, twinkle their eyes, make sexy comments etc... and I was well aware of the young women who would quite happily throw themselves at celebrities whom they idolized...That same kind of woman is still out there today...

14/15 year olds can make themselves appear as 18/19 year olds pretty easily, even more so these days, where so many young women dress as hookers...


Why do I not trust these women? Well, as I stated above, one withdrew a very similar allegation about someone else..and that makes me smell a VERY big rat...and suddenly so many are coming fowards after 40 YEARS???????????????????????????????

And secondly, even as a woman, I'm fed up to my back teeth with the way ANY woman is believed, instantly, whilst ANY man is hanged, drawn and quartered, INSTANTLY, and that stays with them even if it's found that they are entirely innocent!

Yes, I DO stand beside Rolf Harris, and even though he's been charged, he has NOT been found guilty...and even if he were, what exactly is he guilty of?????? Of pinching a bottom 40 years back, or having sex with a very willing young woman, perhaps, who looked far older than she appeared?

I'd HATE to be a boy these days, and if I were, I'd ask any woman to sign a legal document before I even touched her, so vindictive have so many women become....


Yeesh!

The police buggered up over Savile and now they are determined to take any other celebrity they can to dark places, to make themselves look better and seem to be caring.....

It's a fecking witch hunt, brought about by those who chose to knowingly ignore what Savile was doing..and they're shit scared....

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: GUEST,Silas
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:02 AM

I refer you to my previous post.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:05 AM

And so do I.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:39 AM

You can't compare Rolf Harris to Jimmy Savile

Both major celebrities
Both accused of sexual offenses
Neither found guilty in a court of law.

Why should they not be compared?

DtG

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:56 AM

Primarily because Jimmy Saville is dead, and can never face trial, so the evidence came out in public, which enabled people to recognise his guilt.

Rolf Harris is not dead, and is going to face trial, at which allegations and evidence will be presented, and not till then.

That's quite a significant difference, which would make it more appropriate, as I suggested, to give over talking about things about which we have no useful information.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:11 AM

Being someone who likes Rolf Harris (and other accused of crimes not yet proven), I agree with Mr. McGrath.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:17 AM

We live in different times, how many of us oldies have honestly never behaved "inappropriately" to a lady?
Where I come from those who didn't behave "inappropriately", didn't get the girls!

It was all about "sparkle in the eye" and seeing how "far you could go" (within respectful boundaries)...it was "courtship" "the meaning of life" "blood running hot"
In my experience there's nothing a woman likes better than to be thought sexually attractive, or to engender desire in a male

I'm sorry for the new generations, so worried about "rights" that they will never learn how to "live"

This little morality tale is not meant as support for Mr Harris, who may well be a "dirty old man"......but that's a different story.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:22 AM

so the evidence came out in public

It did indeed, Kevin. Very publicly and delivering a prime example of trial by media. The fact still remains that Saville was never and will never be found guilty in a court of law. He is very likely to be guilty of all charges but as he cannot defend himself we will never really know all the aspects. Just as Lizzie points out that we do not know all the aspects of the Harris case.

Why is it OK to publicly talk about one and not the other? Surely, if 'talking about these things' is to be restricted it should be restricted to those who are capable of defending themselves?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:34 AM

This whole scene is turning into something which looks pretty much like a Cromwellian witch hunt.

I shall be very interested in seeing how the accusers stand up to cross examination, and even more interested in seeing how many civil suits for massive damages will follow any convictions.

As Lizzie pointed out, this was a time of pinched bottoms and wolf whistles.

Social and sexual freedom bordered on licentiousness, and many things which would constitute sexual assault today, were shrugged off, or even enjoyed by many.

To prosecute for acts which, at the time, would not have raised eyebrows is not IMO in the public interest.

Anything which would have been considered an actual crime must, of course, be dealt with.

The devil, as always, is in the detail, which is an unknown quantity at this time.

I'll wait and see!
Don T.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: Will Fly
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 11:37 AM

From my own experience of personally knowing someone who has recently been sent to prison for 10 years for multiple (30+) cases of child abuse - in children's homes and in the army over a long period of time - all I can say is that appearances can be deceptive.

This man was a chaplain in the institution where I worked. We worked on the same committees, met several times formally and informally for many years, and I have to say that, in general, he appeared to be a decent and well-respected person. My colleagues felt the same. I was shocked when the allegations initially appeared in the press.

I've now read the details of the offences, which included sexual abuse followed by beatings if the abused child tried to speak out. I've read testimony by the now grown-up children - no damages or compensation claimed, by the way - which is appalling.

Moral: You just can't tell what a person is really like - and all speculation one way or the other is pointless until the trial starts and the facts for and against are brought out and weighed up.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 11:59 AM


Moral: You just can't tell what a person is really like - and all speculation one way or the other is pointless until the trial starts and the facts for and against are brought out and weighed up

I second that. Some 20 years ago my son (then around 10) was friendly with a neighbour's girl of similar age. It got so she was never out of the house and if we went shopping she would be waiting on the doorstep for us. Frankly, it became rather a nuisance and we began to send her home quite firmly.

About a decade later her father was imprisoned for abusing her since that time and for years afterwards.

Maybe we were naïve, but it literally did not occur to us and we were shocked and horrified by that and our accidental contribution to the proceedings.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 12:49 PM

Here you are, Dave...you can leave any hateful comments you have inside you about Rolf, on here:


The Page of Hate about Rolf Harris...


Please click the 'Rolf Harris' name in there, to be taken to the page, as this is a comment I left in the 'comments' box, to the right of the page, which is now already covered in more hatred...

And yes, I HAVE phoned the Met.Police and yes this does come under 'Malicious Communication' apparently and yes, I WILL be going to my local police station in the next few days if FB refuses to remove this entire page, just as the Met. Police told me to do.....

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 01:04 PM

And, in case anyone thinks I know the sicko called 'Ed', I don't. He has merely looked at my photos and taken my daughter's name from there to try and wind me up.

Look at all the hatred, the 'Hang Him' and the 'Committ Suicide' comments!


And this is the main section filled with appalling hate.....

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 01:23 PM

While I agree that culturally accepted sexual mores were definitely more permissive back in the old days, and in particular where underage teeny boppers were concerned; the thing that rings the loudest bells for me isn't so much the possibility of misguided sexual adventures Harris (and many others) may have engaged in with non-legal but fully willing and sexually active teens during his youth and heady days of fame, but in his possible recent creation of paedophilic images of children. If he was merely innocently snapping fun times with family, all well and good. If not, I hope he gets thoroughly shafted. It's not unnatural for young men and teenage girls to have sex, it can be illegal certainly as well as abusive, but it's not always abusive. Old men / women and young children is a different matter entirely, in any sexual context.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 01:43 PM

There certainly were cases of paedophilia and child abuse even in the late forties. I know of two men in our local area who were convicted back then. And I was approached by a man exposing himself on a footpath when I was about nine. I agree with the posters above who say that a paedophile or child abuser can be charming and appear perfectly innocent and moral in character. They don't all snigger, drool and rub their hands together. But as has also been said above, we can't judge until cases have been heard and tried. I met Rolf when he came to our Norwich Primary school with his show. He came round all the classes and spoke to the children and us staff. His show was very good and he had enormous talent. The school was allowed to keep the huge painting he did for the camera. Let's hope it isn't true, but let's also wait until it's over.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 03:10 PM

I'm a lifelong fan of Rolf Harris. Sun Arise was released the year I was born - it actually appeared in the UK in October 1962 when I would have been 14 months old, but even at that age I remember thinking that it was the visionary soundtrack to a matriarchal divinity that the world really needs to know about. World Music began right there.

It was a pleasure to go along to his big exhibition last (?) year at the Walker Gallery in Liverpool, which was pretty shit but no one pretends that his 'art' would be anything without his celebrity good-guy status to back it up. That said when we were visiting the chapel at Tudely in Kent back in July to see the Chagall windows, we blagged our way into the village hall to see Rolf's tribute which was rather charming.

Detail of Rolf's Chagall Window, Tudeley Village Hall : Pic by me, July 2013

Now it's all gone rather sour. Savile was a noxious twat, but Rolf was a man you could trust. Ha! Let's hope it all turns out for the best, eh?

*

Hey, but I'm very glad my Facebook Life is nothing like as exciting Lizzy's. I doubt I could cope if it was.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 03:26 PM

Chagall! One of my favourite artists Blandy. Perfect emotional expression in paint.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 03:45 PM

Here you are, Dave...you can leave any hateful comments you have inside you about Rolf, on here:

I have made no hateful comments about Rolf at all. I do like him and believe he should receive a fair trial. If you can find any please post them. I have said that YOU are showing double standards here. It is OK to slag off Saville, even though he cannot defend himself, yet it is wrong to talk about people who have not yet been convicted. You are just showing yourself up for the manipulative sociopath that you really are.

You are very good at ascribing things to people who are dead and cannot defend themselves aren't you?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris
From: GUEST,Leadbelly
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 04:41 PM

Wow!
When I started this thread I did not expext such an emotional discussion!
I did it, because in Germany I haven't heard about this since now.
Rolf Harris was well known to me only by his hit "Tie me..."
Time will tell what's about all these things. It's too early for final judgement.
Manfred from Germany

Subject: RE: TV Presenter Rolf Harris - sex charges
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 04:51 PM

Leadbelly's first post in this thread identified Harris as "TV presenter Rolf Harris," so I wondered if this was the same guy as the Australian singer. I guess he is. Wikipedia says Harris is 83, and that the alleged offenses took place in the 1980s. One wonders why they can't leave an 83-yr-old man alone, and what's the benefit of prosecuting a 30-year-old crime.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex charges
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 04:54 PM

Savile of course cannot be put on trial. Nor could Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden...

We can either ignore the actions of criminals who die without being put on trial, or we can talk about their alleged crimes on the basis of the information made available in different ways.

The situation with a man who has been cgarged and is facing trial is completely different. We do not have the relevant evidence, we only now that whatever evidence exists can and will be tested in court.

Once the trial is complete, whatever the result, we will be able to dscuss things in the lght of evidence, and quite possbly differ in our views as to whether the verdict, whatever it might be, is right. Can't we wait till then?

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex charges
From: gnu
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:39 PM

Joe... "... and what's the benefit of prosecuting a 30-year-old crime."

$ and the fact that it's word against word... unless they have proof of the porno stuff. Either way, he's gonns get fried so it's all about who can get how much $ before there's none left.

30 years after the fact a bunch of people step forward and accuse someone of terrible crimes with no evidence but words and hearsay? I find that kinda shit sickening. If enough people say it is true, it must be true??? BULLSHIT! If there is evidence of possession of child pornography or of making same, fry the bastard for those crimes. But those people who come to feast on his carcass after 30 years of silence with NO evidence???... fuck em. THEY should be charged for frivolous procedings.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex charges
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:33 PM

CS - Go to the chapel in Tudeley, you'd howl at the moon. We thought it would be a real tourist trap - but (like Kilpeck) we had the place to ourselves for over an hour. I WEPT I tell you. Now I know how it is to bathe in pure light.

In Liverpool Tate right there's a really important (and very big) Chagall exhibition which is the cultural event of the century. For me anyway.

*

Who changed the thread title anyway? Sex charges? Since when has child abuse been about sex?

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex charges
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 07:48 PM

Since it isn't proven yet and there are legal issues which may impact allowing such to remain in a public forum?

Just a guess.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex charges
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:40 PM

Hi, Blandiver - I changed the thread title. We try to have a degree of specificity in thread titles, so people know more-or-less what's inside. I don't know what things are like where you live, but where I live here in California, a distinction is made between child abuse (causing physical or mental harm) and child molestation abuse of a sexual nature. "Nine counts of indecent assault and four of making indecent images of children" would fall in the latter category, although actual "molestation" usually involves some sort of genital contact. If convicted of such offenses, the person would have to be registered as a sex offender for the rest of his life. So, given the limited space allowed for thread titles, I figured "sex charges" was an apt description.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex charges
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 02:24 AM

In UK law, adults have a duty of safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults from abuse or risk of abuse. Abuse has half a dozen categories including the catch all sexual abuse, so slightly different interpretation to California Joe, but similar outcome. The level of sexual abuse, from viewing images in the abstract to rape are for the judge and jury but the issue starts at a safeguarding level.

With regard to Rolf Harris, I too will wait for justice to take its course. He is a bit of a hero musically, (Stairway to Heaven anybody? ) and in later years as a UK television presenter has become part of most families by association.   Hence the stunned shock, regardless of whether we are judging old standards etc.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex charges
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 03:25 AM

I think 'abuse charges' would be better in a UK context, & pretty unambiguous given the status of the case in the news right now - 2nd only to the Syria vote on most newspaper front pages yesterday.

The sooner we disassociate this sort of thing from sex the better.

---

I changed it to "sex abuse charges," hoping that's a term that will be more generally understood.. -Joe-

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 09:31 AM

Abuse can of course mean swearing at people, which can Give rise to criminal charges. And of course there's physical abuse involving hitting. Joe's label is clearer.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 11:54 AM

I've been musing on the evident differences in similar cultures.

For instance, above Ms Cornish said- and it was accepted by other UKers - that it was common in 'the old days' for girls' bottoms to be pinched, implying no one thought anything of it.

In the US, unless I am greatly mistaken, bottom pinching of young girls would always have been considered beyond the pale. Cheek pinching (of the facial variety), yes. But bottoms? No.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 12:39 PM

Places vary and things change over time.

Here is a report I found posted in July 2003 from Italy:

Italy's High Court has overturned a controversial ruling that decreed that pinching a woman's bottom was not a crime.

The new decision, by a panel of judges sitting in Rome, means that pinching a woman's bottom is classed as sexual assault.

The judges said: ''Fondling buttocks, unquestionably constitutes a sexual act because the perpetrator commits a substantive and concrete intrusion into the victim's sexual sphere. Such acts, albeit superficial, amount to assault.''

The new ruling is a complete U-turn on a decision issued in January 2001 which said that it was not a crime for a man to pinch or touch a woman's bottom provided it was a ''sudden and isolated action.''

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 01:45 PM

I understand that in certain parts of the world (a young woman of my acquaintance came home outraged by the actions of men in Bali and Indonesia) pinching/touching/leering is, if not the norm, at least accepted by the populace. Presumably also by their women compatriots.

But in England? I am surprised.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 03:18 PM

I've never had my bottom pinched. (Perhaps it isn't a very enticing bottom, although nowadays there's certainly plenty of it.) But even sixty years ago, if some creep had done so, he'd have got a whacking great smack round the face.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: Will Fly
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 03:22 PM

Ms Cornish said- and it was accepted by other UKers - that it was common in 'the old days' for girls' bottoms to be pinched, implying no one thought anything of it.

I think I'd disagree with that. In 'the old days', my younger sister was once subject to some fiddling of the sort above. She told my father - who told the local law - and it was dealt with seriously. She identified the fiddler in a police book of known offenders.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: GUEST,big al whittle
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 05:09 PM

Eliza if you want your bum pinched - I'm yer man!

In the meantime consider this a cyberpinch!

If you feel a frisson of sexual excitement - you could perhaps attempt a cyber ouch!

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 05:14 PM

LOL Al!! You're revealed as the Cyber Bottom Pincher! I think I'll merely retaliate with a Virtual Smack Round The Chops.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: gnu
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 05:31 PM

"a Virtual Smack Round The Chops" That is just one vowel away from sexual innuendo. >;-)

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 05:48 PM

Joe, you raise a fair question about the passage of time.

I think the answer is that since criminal offences have been alleged, it is in the interests of justice for the accusers and Rolf alike that they are considered in a court. The allegation that Rolf has made indecent images of minors is a different matter, probably resulting from police enquiries rather than witness statements, That one might not have been pursued had it related to 1980, but it relates to 2012.

The fact that Jimmy Savile, who we can now be sure was everything that Lizzie says he was, died without ever facing justice has caused colossal and understandable frustration and has paved the way for DMcG to engage in a tedious, tendencious and pedantic exercise based, I suspect, more on animosity to Lizzie than on any serious commitment to the idea that Savile's and Harris's are comparable cases.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:40 PM

Peter K - I am neither pedantic nor DMcG :-) Do try to get your facts right before you embark on any tedious or tendencious exercise to discredit me.

I hold no animosity toward Lizzie. Even if I did I am sure she can stand up for herself. I do not know her. I could not care less what she, nor anyone else I have never even met, says on an insignificant internet forum.

For the record, I believe it more than likely that Saville was guilty of at least some of the offenses reported. But my point is that the argument 'innocent until proven guilty' could apply equally to the Saville and Harris cases, not that the actual cases are the same.

However,I guess you knew that and just chose to try and score some sort of imaginary points of your own. I hope you feel you have and that it has made you happier.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 06:58 AM

""But even sixty years ago, if some creep had done so, he'd have got a whacking great smack round the face.""

And of course, back in the day, that was the response in many, if not most, cases, rather than arrest and prosecution.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 01:03 PM

Well, I'm sorry, but it was VERY common for young women to get their bottoms pinched, back in the day...especially on the London Underground trains at rush hour when everyone was packed in like sardines...I know because it happened to me and to many of my friends too...but we thought very little of it, other than mild irritation and trying not to laugh when looking at a sea of "It wasn't ME!" male faces around us....

HOW many men here can put their hand on their hearts and say that their eyes have followed a 15 year old lassie wiggling down the street? How many men can tell me that they never kissed a 14/15 year old girl, back in the day, when they were a similar age and the hormones were just starting to rise?

HOW many men can tell me that they NEVER danced close to a young girl at a disco, hands on her bottom, if she allowed it, or quickly removed, if she didn't?

The whole description of 'sexual abuse and indecent assault' covers many, many things, from the most mild to the most serious....

Apparently, even telling someone a sexually orientated JOKE can get you into trouble if your 14/15 year old girlfriend holds a deep grudge against you later on...

So, watch out guys, for you might be next, even if it all happened 30 years or more back...

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 02:10 PM

How many men can tell me that they never kissed a 14/15 year old girl, back in the day, when they were a similar age and the hormones were just starting to rise?

I certainly kissed 14/15 year old girls when I was 15 - but not 14/15 year old girls when I was 25...35...45...55... or 65... and that's the difference.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 02:21 PM

I suspect most of us would say the same as regards year old girls (or boys for that matter), and older men (or women) but the law wouldn't have any concern about it. Unless they were their teachers or similar.

All seems a bit arbitrary. But then I suppose all borderlines are like that.

Subject: RE: Rolf Harris - sex abuse charges
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 02:24 PM

I suspect most of us would say the same as regards 16 year old girls (or boys for that matter), and older men (or women) but the law wouldn't have any concern about it. Unless they were their teachers or similar.

All seems a bit arbitrary. But then I suppose all borderlines are like that.