Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:33 AM

As I am sure you well know, Lizzie, Joe made the comment was and then deleted it. Prerogative of having admin rights I suppose. As to narcissistic personality disorder. Well, it is not me that tries to turn every issue to being about me is it? There was no attempt to smear you or anything you said and I just stated my opinion that you were going about things the wrong way. That opinion is shared by others but should you chose to ignore it I shall not press the matter.

Think you too.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:18 AM

Feminism is doing a huge amount of damage at present with their War Upon Men

Christ, Liz, what drugs are you on?

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 08:31 AM

Mr. Offer,

This corpse is stinking of putrifaction! ! !

It is about time it mercifuly went down under.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?
Galtions 5:9

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 07:58 AM

And yes, you are right, Sista, I am NOT one of The Sistas, never have been, never will be. Diane was a radical feminist, one of the reasons we did not get on on the folk borad, but, behind the scenes, we did actually get on very well at times, away from all your prying eyes.

Feminism is doing a huge amount of damage at present with their War Upon Men. NO man is safe in the UK now, no man.

Keep an eye out for some interesting things coming up in the not too distant future about someone who was found guilty of abuse, with a Met. Police officer on the jury, of course...because I know a lot about what's going on behind the scenes...and I can assure you that this person is NOT guilty, despite the shocking and deeply wrongful verdict...

Right, I'm just off to read Paul Gambaccini's new book now, 'Love, Paul Gambaccini', about HIS time under Operation Yewtree, which you can find out more about from here, including watching some of the many interviews (see 'comments' below main info, which he gave about the appalling way he was treated and what this means for British Justice.

Paul Gambaccini on 'Operation Yewtree'

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 07:51 AM

"You don't seem to understand, Lizzie, that while your aims may be noble your approach is seriously flawed and, as Joe said, if you made your posts more about the point in question than about yourself they may be more acceptable."

Joe said nothing of the sort. THIS is what Joe ACTUALLY said, but, as ever, you spin it to try and make me look as bad as you can. Do you hae Narcissistic Personality Disorder, by any chance, because you love to try and start your own little smear campaigns about me at every opportunity.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 05:20 PM

"I've combined the three threads as well as I could, and I insist that this thread remain in the music section because it is a discussion about a folk musician. If any individual gets out of hand with rants, I'll take care of it - please ignore him/her. This thread is about the charges against folk musician Roy Harper.
Thanks.

-Joe-"   


Thank you

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 08:32 AM

If that means, matt, that you think it's not so bad when an innocent person is wrongly jailed than when a guilty person isn't, I'd disagree strongly, and I believe so would most people. And it goes clear against the established principle that has been supposed to guide English law since the 18th century "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 05:19 AM

(Though i'd say the word "unfortunate" is more than a bit of an understatement, and more so with regard to the former circumstance than the latter)

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 05:13 AM

"If he really was guilty and has got away with it, that's unfortunate. If he really was innocent and has had horrendous trouble and expense before reaching this point, that also unfortunate."

Very well put, Richard.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: Will Fly
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 04:24 AM

But we should be careful about sounding off if we think a mistake has been made, either way, without seriously trying to check the evidence about the facts.

I think this sums up, in one sentence, the underlying impossibility of having these discussions on Mudcat. None of us - not one of us - is capable of seriously checking the evidence of accuser and accused in cases such as this. For want of tangible evidence such as objects, fingerprints, photographs, etc., it's one word against another. This must be difficult enough to assess in court - impossible for us who come to it all at second hand through media reports

When a member of the forum says, "You must read evidence X - it gives the true picture and evidence Y is totally false", how are we to assess whether X or Y, or either, is true or false? Not at all, is my guess, even perhaps, if we knew the people involved personally. In the case of Jimmy Savile, for instance, I met him on several occasions: in student days in Leeds in the early '60, when he was setting up a string of nightclubs; at the BBC in the late '60s and early '70s. My assessment of him then was that he was a devious, self-serving, slimy, manipulative, bullying shit, and I loathed him. As to the charges against him, they seem to fit my assessment - and yet, and yet, the uncomfortable truth is that I only know the truth as presented to me through the media.

I also met Roy Harper a few times in the early '70s, when I used to drink with friends in a pub in Finchley called, if I remember correctly, the North Star. I personally thought, at that time, that he was a mite pretentious, tedious and thought a lot of himself. I didn't care for his music, either, but that's neither here nor there. Probably says more about me than about him!

The point is, and I'm sorry to be so long-winded about it, that there is no way that I could pronounce accurately on the guilt or innocence of Harper. Or - and here's the hard bit to take - on the that of Savile either. The only people who can do that are those accusing and those accused. No amount of evidence analysis on the part of Mudcat members will make us any the wiser.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 07:48 PM

The best method, perhaps, but by no means free from the possibility of error. The skills of the lawyers on both sides, where a stronger lawyer can skew the result either way, the qualities of the judge, the make-up of the jury - all those mean there is a strong element of chance.

But we should be careful about sounding off if we think a mistake has been made, either way, without seriously trying to check the evidence about the facts. No "well, there's no smoke without fire" for someone who has been cleared or had the case dropped, and no "they should throw away the key" for someone who has been found guilty. Especially not on the basis of tabloid headlines.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 04:45 PM

When an alleged crime is reported and brought to trial many years later, it could really have happened, or the alleged victim could have a false memory or could simply be lying. There is no way to be sure, but the best method we have is presentation of whatever evidence exists, including the claims of both parties, to a jury.

In the Harper case, that was done, the jury couldn't agree on a verdict, and the prosecution decided that there is insufficient evidence to make a retrial worthwhile. That looks to me like a vindication of the jury system and of "innocent until proven guilty".

If he really was guilty and has got away with it, that's unfortunate. If he really was innocent and has had horrendous trouble and expense before reaching this point, that also unfortunate.

In either case, shit happens (as they say).

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 03:04 PM

Lizzie is absolutely right about corruption and lack of equal rights in the legal system (as with most walks of life, particularly politics and religion), but at least in the UK it's not quite as corrupt as in most other countries.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 01:48 PM

Greg - Guest(?) - Modette - Mr Bridge

Let me adapt the last injunction of first named of these & please get over yourselves rite bak 2 U.

Lizzie may be sometimes a little over-emphatic in promoting the causes she espouses; but I think her ❤ far more accurately placed than any of your vinegary cardiac organs. I wouldn't, as they say, give a dime a dozen for any of u-lot's cynical self·regarding sang-froid in comparison of her dedication.

Not but wot as fellow-Catters, luvyaz-all justa same -- sometimes.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 01:37 PM

Modette is right

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 12:53 PM

It's at times like this that I miss Diane Easby. She certainly had Mrs. Root's number.

Lizzie, you may be a woman, but you certainly ain't our sister.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 12:40 PM

Just think of the fun rapists could have if everybody was as supportive of their personality disorder as Dizzy Cornish seems to be.

Famous people can do no wrong eh? Tell that to the victims of Rolf Harris, Jimmy Saville etc etc.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 09:25 AM

remember the woman who shouted out about the corruption and death of British Justice, as they lead you into your cell...

Yo, Liz! Get over yourself, will ya?

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: GUEST,Mike K
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 09:07 AM

Greater Manchester police recently stated they will never charge any woman for false allegations.

Do you have evidence to back that statement up, Lizzie?

It sounds highly unlikely

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 09:07 AM

I, for one, have never "slung mud at you for daring to stand up and speak out". You don't seem to understand, Lizzie, that while your aims may be noble your approach is seriously flawed and, as Joe said, if you made your posts more about the point in question than about yourself they may be more acceptable.

Sorry, Joe, I know that this should probably be deleted along with the rant that brought it on but when someone starts slinging such shit something needs saying.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 08:00 AM

Bill Cosby will be hanging around this thread pretty soon. He needs a supporter like you.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 06:35 AM

Thank you for changing the title as you have.

From Brimbacombe: £Insinuating - as Lizzie does here and elsewhere - that this somehow proves that others accused of such crimes are innocent, and that the victims of their abuse should be shamed and punished, is another thing altogether."

I have never said that true victims of abuse should be shamed at all. BUT, those who make false allegations MUST be named and shamed, without doubt, for they abuse innocent people, mostly men. Greater Manchester police recently stated they will never charge any woman for false allegations. This is outrageous and an open invitation for yet more liars, narcissists, cheats, gold-diggers and revenge-seeking folks to come forward in even greater numbers.

As to He Who Must Not Be Mentioned, those who have slung mud at me for daring to stand up and speak out, will have to eat their words, in the not too distant future.

Two of The Tremeloes have now been charged with indecent assault of an alleged under 16 year old, 40 or so years back. As always, there will be NO evidence at all, nor any witnesses....

Watch out, for it could be one of you suppressors next...and if it is, then remember the woman who shouted out about the corruption and death of British Justice, as they lead you into your cell..and of how you tried so hard to silence that person.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 06:19 AM

On balance it probably is better to keep threads where they have started, only moving them early on if it's clear there's been a mistake.

The distinction between music threads and BS is a pretty ramshackle one anyway, and that's how it should be. When you're talking about a song you get into talking about whatever the song is about, which is likely to be real life, how the world is etc - and when you're talking about anything often the best way to get a point across is to use a song to illustrate it.

I imagine there are people who don't bother to look at both sections. More fool them.
...................

The idea that the personal behaviour of singers, or writers or artists should be a reason to avoid using their works is profoundly wrong to my mind. We don't apply it historically - no one suggests we banish paintings by Caravaggio because he was a murderer.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 03:40 AM

That being the case Joe, you posted on Bob Chiswick's thread regarding his excellent new song about WW1 yet kept it in the bullshit section.

At a session last night, someone excused themselves for singing a Cliff Richard song on the basis "get it in whilst still socially acceptable."

You see, when people get celebrity status, any enigma qualities, however unpalatable become part of the dream.

---

All I saw in the Chiswick thread was a couple of links, no lyrics or mention of music, so I moved it to the BS section. It's a longstanding policy here that if you start a thread, you're supposed to post words of explanation, not just links. That's what discussion forums are all about.
But now that I know, I moved the Chiswick thread back to the music section.
-Joe Offer-
[e-mail]

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 08:22 AM

Thanks Joe.

On the other thread I mentioned 'When an old cricketer leaves the crease' as one of my favourite Harper songs. I have not heard it for ages. Wonder if the cloud over him put people off performing his works? If so, I hope everyone puts it back on the agenda now!

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 10:53 PM

I disagree that just because a thread centres on a musician it should be in the music section, particularly in the light of the way thread drift works. This thread has gone far beyond being about Roy Harper. It's more about legal processes, and sexual offences, and celebrities, football players and no doubt politiciansj, as much as musicians.

I vote for movinng it downstairs. Not that votes come into the matter, and that's not a bad thing in my view.

My view is that we should always be aware that courts and the justice system are fallable. People get freed who are guilty, and jailed when they are innocent. And we should always avoid getting caught up into the mob psychosis in which we lay claim to a kind of certainty that none of us are entitled to.

---

It's one that could go either way, Kevin. In that case, we usually leave the discussion where it started. And we don't split discussions into music and non-music parts. That just gets confusing.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 05:20 PM

I've combined the three threads as well as I could, and I insist that this thread remain in the music section because it is a discussion about a folk musician. If any individual gets out of hand with rants, I'll take care of it - please ignore him/her. This thread is about the charges against folk musician Roy Harper.
Thanks.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 03:56 PM

Thank you for a clear and understandable summary, Richard. I do take it that the attention grabbing meme 'guilty until proven innocent' is still a misnomer though?

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Roy Harper - FORBIDDEN FRUIT
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 03:29 PM

'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 CLEARED
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 03:08 PM

References to the specific sections of the said Acts might be more helpful. There have been a number of attempts, some more successful than others, to deal with three problems in the law of rape.

The first problem lies in "consent". The archetypal issue is the case of a woman (or person in question) who is drunk to or perhaps nearly to the point of being comatose. If a sexual predator continues in the absence of objection, was there "consent". Many men argued so and doubtless many were lying.

Second, there is the problem of "mens rea". If a man genuinely thought that a woman (usual caveat as to gender) consented but in fact she did not, as the law used to stand he was innocent of rape regardless of whether his view was reasonable. This usually arose when the offending sex partner was not the rapist, but a partner of the victim who fantasised about rape. He might induce an third party to believe that rape was the victim's fantasy, and that she would yell and scream but really wanted it. If the third party idiot genuinely believed that, did he intend to rape? Shades of Robin THicke's rather revolting but catchy "Blurred lines" song.

Third there is the problem of reasonable doubt. It is in the nature of sexual offences that in many cases, the only people with direct knowledge were the perpetrator and the victim. Many a rapist went free because of this.

Vera Baird QC has for long campaigned on this issue. One of my contacts may be able to get her views. But she is busy.


So, while sexual offences are not my speciality (except in a purely amateur capacity, fnar fnar) it is fair to say (probably, according to one colleague of mine who used to teach criminal law) that there was an attempt to create a two-tier approach to certain crimes, in order to avoid the scandal of rapists (some of who happened to play professional football, or box) going free.

The details I await.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Roy Harper - FORBIDDEN FRUIT
From: GUEST,Guestie
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 08:27 AM

The lyric is about a girlfriend Harper had when he himself was a teenager. The grown-ups disapproved of the relationship, hence the title. He clarified this a long time ago. Obviously it's tempting to link the lyric to recent events if you're uninformed and looking for conclusions to jump to.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Roy Harper - FORBIDDEN FRUIT
From: GUEST,😇
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 08:21 AM

So he did it and got away with it and the song is a public confession;
or he didn't and is innocent of all charges, and the song is an artistic work of creative imaginative fiction.

Either way it's a crap lyric.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 08:11 AM

I have no inclination to read what you suggest, 10 Nov 15 - 07:54 AM, and if I did I strongly suspect that it would be beyond my limited legal knowledge. If you are a legal professional please feel free to explain it to us in layman's terms and we can see if it tallies with Mr Bridge's colleague's view.

I would however comment that the acts you are citing are from 1994 and 2003. The 'recent statutory amendments' comment is too vague to be of use to anyone. As the specific acts pre-date the trials and investigations being questioned in this thread, by many years, I question their relevance.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Roy Harper - FORBIDDEN FRUIT
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 07:57 AM

For the historical context of the song.

Roy Harper had three charges of indecent assault, and four charges of indecency with a child and two charges of sexual intercourse with a girl under 13, all involving the same girl, between August 31, 1975 and January 1, 1977.

The girl was then aged 11 or 12 and the offences are alleged to have happened when he lived at The Vauld.

Harper, also had one charge of indecently assaulting a girl, then aged 16, in Hereford between May 23, 1980 and January 1, 1981.

The case was not retried.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 07:54 AM

@ Dave the Gnome re your post 09 Nov 15 - 03:43 PM

Your attention is drawn to -
The Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994;
The Sexual Offences Act 2003;
Recent statutory amendments to the criminal justice system.

Take the trouble to read the above and see for yourself how they have combined to create the two-tier criminal justice system described in the article.

The need for corroboration was removed by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Section 32 and 33, which make false accusations not only possible but also more probable as well as automatically creating a second class tier of criminal offences for those accused of sexual offences. A similar attempt to remove the need for corroboration under Scottish Law was just recently thwarted.

The following was one of the many comments to the "Inside Times" article:

Innocent Until Proven Guilty? That's A Joke These Days:

We have first hand experience of living with a false allegation. We naively put our faith in the police and the British justice system but now realise, as should everyone who reads this, that if a false allegation is made against you then you are presumed guilty and everything the police say about seeking the truth or performing an 'investigation' is pure lip service. Men who have false allegations made against them are now caught in a perfect storm of financial incentive for the 'accuser', cuts in legal aid for their defence (which pits bottom of the barrel barristers with top level cps prosecutors) and a jury who are told 'don't put too much weight on the evidence supporting the defence…just go with what your gut tells you'. The police then gleefully rubbing their hands together as they improve their stats regardless of whether someone is innocent or not, that doesn't matter to them anymore. Believe me. This whole topic is completely taboo and the families of those falsely accused are left trying to live with the stigma that this sort of accusation carries. We barely tell a soul and yet when we do, low and behold, it has happened to someone else they know too. The true numbers of those affected never really being."

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Froggyted
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 07:13 AM

Plenty of discussion on the end of the court case against Roy here:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2884865149/?fref=ts

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 06:45 AM

In all of these discussions I find it bewildering and slightly comical that everyone seems to hold the British law courts in such godlike high esteem.

The fact is that in sexual abuse crimes - particularly ones in which years have elapsed - there is unlikely to be much evidence. If there isn't much evidence, it's unlikely someone will be found guilty. All an innocent verdict tells us is the available evidence tells us we should acquit. An innocent verdict is qualitatively different from a guilty one in this respect.

I find it quite weird that everyone seems to think Rolf Harris is a dirty paedo because he was found guilty whereas Roy Harper is clearly completely innocent because he was found innocent. The law makes mistakes, and makes decisions based on what evidence is AVAILABLE, not through a unique godlike omniscience denied to you or I.

In reality, the only people who will EVER really know what happened in cases of sexual abuse are the accuser and the accused. Everyone else has to make a largely partisan decision based on what they've read of the case.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED - Thread 2
From: GUEST,Brimbacombe
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 06:43 AM

"Do nothing of the sort, Lizzie. Your point is not merely valuable, but, in interests of justice, essential. Can't imagine what can have got that officious opinionated self·regarding oddball Bridge's knickers in a twist this time!"

Stating that Roy Harper has been cleared is one thing. It is valuable, essential and we can only hope that Roy and his family can recover from an unimaginably horrific period of their lives. Insinuating - as Lizzie does here and elsewhere - that this somehow proves that others accused of such crimes are innocent, and that the victims of their abuse should be shamed and punished, is another thing altogether. Each case is different and the topic is not as black and white as the likes of Lizzie like to paint it.

I really wonder why anyone would bother being a moderator. I'm just glad that they do. Thank you!

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED - Thread 2
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 06:18 AM

I imagine they placed it in the BS section because of quotes like this:

" to demand these women are named, shamed and punished for tearing apart the lives of decent, good men"

In fact, Mods, in the light of that, can this thread please be moved? Because, by any objective standards, that demand tips the thread into an ethical/political discussion about legal procedure, law and privacy, not the simple reporting of a piece of fact.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED - Thread 2
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 05:53 AM

Do nothing of the sort, Lizzie. Your point is not merely valuable, but, in interests of justice, essential. Can't imagine what can have got that officious opinionated self·regarding oddball Bridge's knickers in a twist this time!

Best

≈Michael≈

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 05:51 AM

Lizzie, please feck off. "Cleared" is a misnomer. Harper has been found "not guilty" on some charges but others have not proceeded to trial so nobody knows the facts in detail. Please try to stick to accurate statements of the law and the facts. I know you find this hard, as you do not believe in rigorous thinking, preferring to watch the fwuffy ickle squiggles out of the window, but there is no excuse for the way that your insane ranting disrupts this forum.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED - Thread 2
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 05:46 AM

Lizzie, PLEASE go away.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED - Thread 2
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 05:24 AM

Another brilliant blog on Roy's trial.

Of course, it should be MAJOR news, but again, it's all hidden away.

So far, only Paul Gambaccini has managed to break through the sociopathic British media, who happily join in the persecution of innocent men, but refuse to talk about them beind found innocent, refusing also to demand these women are named, shamed and punished for tearing apart the lives of decent, good men.

Hats Off To Roy - from the blog of Anna Raccoon

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 03:13 AM

I too have friends who charge by the minute. They would charge by the hour but not relevant in my case.

Regarding Roy Harper, he is an example of the singular downside of our justice system, that of "opportunity to clear your name to your peers." The alternative that grants you anonyminity is secret courts and on balance....

It is wrong that you can win and still be out of pocket. In a civil case, I sued a large company earlier this year and won. Not all my legal fees were paid and I won a percentage of what was owed, hence it cost me a few thousand pounds to win.

Roy Harper is an example, as it would seem is Dave Lee Travis, Paul Gambuccini and others of how celebrities sell newspapers, police feel the need to react to twitterati and the public want protecting from animals. Heady combination.

Still, Rolf Harris, Max Hastings, him who went with everyone to the moon and the It's a Knockout bloke turned out to be criminal sex offenders. Without the system they might still have been abusing children.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 09:26 PM

I am suspicious of the general accuracy of the report from "Inside Times". I have asked a barrister friend who may know somebody with relevant expertise to comment.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 07:06 PM

And as to the idea in the other thread that if someone writes a song where the narrator holds evil views then the songwriter himself must share these views - well that is absurd. A songwriter can tell a story or have a character talk just as a novelist, playwrite or film maker can. I know there are people who can't seem to separate art and reality but I am always amazed at that. When I was a teenager in the late 70s I was in a punk band and the old guy who saw lyrics I wrote told my parent's (he was completely serious) that I should seek therapy. Lyrics were far from great right enough and the subject matter is pretty horrible - but honest I may well stand guilty of writing substandard lyrics but I wasn't actually a serial killer or even thought about being one!

My Dad laughs at me
He's not a pleasant chap at all
But last night he was seen
Crawling round the hall
Grasping at the wall
Generally looking quite small
That's my Dad

My Mum loves her John
You never see her on her own
But lately she's been here with me
Brewing up some tea
For the family
As happy as I want her to be
That's my Mum

Now who's the King of the Castle
Now who's the fool on the hill
Who'll open the door when the policemen knock
And make the bastards ill

This child was a lonely child
A shy and unassuming lad
Then this child saw another child
Swept her off her feet
Dragged her off the street
Brought her home to meet
Mum and Dad

Now who's the King of the Castle
Now who's the fool on the hill
Who'll find a home for your rotting bones
For your Mummy never will

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:45 PM

I don't get where the posts suggesting he hasn't been cleared are coming from? Surely it was an English Court so there are only two outcomes. You are either guilty or innocent. The Scottish system where there is a possible third "Not Proven" verdict does not apply here.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Roy Harper - FORBIDDEN FRUIT
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:15 PM

perverted or not, it's a crap song.
Does the musoc sound any better than these shite lyrics ?

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: GUEST,Susie
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 05:50 PM

Very glad that Roy's not got a case to answer. Nice chap. He's spent his savings - that which would support him through the winter of his life - on lawyers. He needs help. So, instead of bellyaching, can we help, please?

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Roy Harper - FORBIDDEN FRUIT
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 05:20 PM

How can he be anything other than an absolute pervert writing stuff like that.

Subject: Lyr Add: Roy Harper - FORBIDDEN FRUIT
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 03:50 PM

FORBIDDEN FRUIT
Lyrics -Roy Harper
Music Roy Harper
1974 Harvest Recotds


Baby, won't you play with me ?
Games that no one else can see ?
Leanin' over out my window
Flashing me a mini flower show

Steal away from mummy, oh there's my little girl
On the pillow of my tummy give my hair a curl
Run your fingers under and over, make us a little pool
And don't forget about tomorrow in the same place after school.

Baby, make me calm your fears
Let me hold your thirteen years
In between the silky, love me
Race my heart and let ……….

Oh baby I can feel you, see my thunderburst
Melting us together in the plains of magic thirst
We can be forever and ever, watching the water fall
Floating in the lake of all peace after love and after all.

We can be forever and ever, watching the water fall
Floating in the lake of all peace after love and after all.


The alleged paedophile acts of Mr. Harper stem from 1975 and 76.