Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 03:43 PM

I find that difficult to believe, 09 Nov 15 - 03:29 PM. It is certainly true in terms of the ridiculous 'trial by media' that seems to go on nowadays but is it really the case in the proper legal system? I suspect that a change such as guilty until proven innocent would have to go to parliament at least and, if there was such a law passed, I have certainly heard nothing about it on the news. Can you point us in the direction of any such official legislation other than an article in Britain's only monthly newspaper for prisoners?

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 03:33 PM

Dave Lee Travis - for many years a top BBC DJ.

I'm with DtG and GSS regarding anonymity for the accused until the case has been heard. If 'guilty' verdict - name and shame, if 'not guilty' - anonymity to be preserved.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 03:29 PM

An article that appeared in "Inside Times"

British (in)Justice, why it is so easy to prosecute sex offences

For those of you who are still unaware of the facts, no evidence is required to convict on sexual offences. The Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and recent statutory amendments to the criminal justice system have combined to create a two-tier criminal justice system, something that is contrary to the concept of 'everyone being equal in the eyes of the law'. These days a person's legal rights are determined by the offence(s) with which they have been charged.

For offences such as theft, robbery, burglary etc., that are classed as 'standard criminal offences' and therefore not political and not included in tabloid media vilification programmes, the intentionally accepted legal 'norms' have been preserved and the Prosecution are still obliged to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt' that the defendant committed the offences, and this still requires the corroboration of any verbal accusation made by provision of evidence; i.e. something tangible, to not only prove the offence but also to link the accused to the offence. However, for politically contentious offences, i.e. sexual offences, the international norms have been removed so that the premise of 'innocent until proven guilty' has been removed. The Prosecution no longer have to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt' that the offence occurred. The civil burden of proof has instead been inserted into criminal trials, leaving the jury to make their decision based on the 'balance of probabilities, which is a much lower burden of proof, whereby no evidence is required to prove the offence and no corroboration is needed for the accusation. 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.

This has been achieved simply by changing the rules of evidence and reducing the burden of proof necessary to convict. It has been made easier to convict by the fact that the checks and balances such as the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty had come from Common Law and was therefore not a part of the statutory legal framework, meaning that any change necessary could be achieved by the burden of proof thus changing the treatment of the accused.

So the accused is now, in effect, guilty until proven innocent and has to prove beyond all reason- able doubt that he is innocent of the charges. Before this the Prosecution had the burden of proof which went far beyond mere accusations, but this no longer applies to sexual offences in the UK. This means the defendant is now guilty until (or if) they can prove themselves innocent. And everyone knows that to prove a negative is virtually impossible.

This is contrary to Articles 6 (1) (2) and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which provides the presumption of innocence in criminal trials (see Funke v France (1993) 16 EHRR297). The principle assumes that the Prosecution needs to provide evidence (not merely accusation) of guilt in a criminal trial. Accusation now seems to be treated as 'evidence'.

If true then that seems to bear out what Manitas_at_home said in his post above - Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:54 PM

These days it seems to be you're guilty unless you're proven innocent.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 03:24 PM

Glad to hear that Harper has been cleared, though the cost to him is outrageous.

Who is DLT?

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 02:57 PM

I would welcome a move to ensure anonymity to both victims and accused until the court case has been resolved.
I agree, this should apply in murder trials a well, a case IN POINT is that of Ian Bailey, and the Sophie du Plantier murder.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 02:03 PM

I thought I posted this before but maybe it didn't take. Apologies if anyone sees it twice.

For once, Lizzie, I almost agree with you. It is good that he has been cleared. Along with William Roache, Paul Gambaccini, John Leslie and the many others who have been cleared or not even charged. It gives me faith that the legal system is pretty good and that those convicted are, on the balance of probabilities, guilty.

I would say that historic cases, such as these, must all be tried on their own merits and because some decisions are unpopular there is no need need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.   I would welcome a move to ensure anonymity to both victims and accused until the court case has been resolved. It is not 'in the public interest' to name the accused at all. It is only in the interest of media moguls. But I would not go so far as to say that the system is utterly corrupt.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:58 PM

To be clear, the article linked above doesn't actually say he was found innocent. I think he would have much preferred that.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: GUEST,Morris-ey
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:57 PM

No one is, nor should anyone be, beyond investigation.

Roy Harper has been exonerated, Rolf Harris is where he belongs.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:54 PM

The charges were dropped. It sounds to me as if he hasn't been able to clear his name. These days it seems to be you're guilty unless you're proven innocent.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 12:59 PM

I pleased to hear that charges have been dropped.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Acorn4
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 12:28 PM

This from today's Guardian:-

"Roy Harper - Charges Dropped"

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Ian
Date: 24 Feb 15 - 05:33 AM

Strange to see that there are people that still think that folk is a type of music in its own right. Folk music is music of the people any music/song performed since prehistoric time or today or in the future is Folk in the style of the performer.
Now get over it and look at the matter in hand someone has been charged for an offence. There is a lot to be said for not disclosing any name of persons charged with any crime until the case has been tried. Even when found NOT guilty it has cost people thousands to defend themselves and still leaves there life in ruins.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,DaveRo
Date: 23 Feb 15 - 01:37 PM

From that BBC report:
"Discharging the jury, Judge Robert Juckes QC gave prosecutors two weeks to consider whether to seek a re-trial on the remaining charges,.."
Any legal people have an update? I do hope this is over.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Feb 15 - 10:51 PM

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 15 - 10:15 PM

Looks like trial started today 19 January 2015 but not reported anywhere apart from court listings for Worcester crown court. On 12 charges, including rape.

---

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 15 - 10:25 PM

http://t.co/zDUZusjGF9

http://t.co/d3StrUrkl3

---

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Mr Red
Date: 20 Jan 15 - 02:02 AM

http://t.co/d3StrUrkl3 redirects to this from May 2

the other link fails.

---

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 20 Jan 15 - 03:42 AM

I live in Herefordshire and so did Roy I believe. Local rumour had it that he was a tad fond of sheep.

---

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 15 - 05:00 AM

Rumours are not proof of anything.

---

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Jan 15 - 06:16 AM

i seem to recollect he contracted TB through trying to give mouth to mouth resuscitation to a sheep.

i'm really sorry this has happened. i hope he is innocent, and is found to be.

---

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Campin
Date: 20 Jan 15 - 07:48 PM

The BBC has finally noticed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-30907325

---

Subject: Roy Harper
From: GUEST,Susie
Date: 21 Jan 15 - 02:16 PM

Saw a recent comment.. I'm afraid he's in real trouble.
On BBC website today...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-30907325

---

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 15 - 12:10 PM

Cleared, sort of:

BBC News

---

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Good Soldier Schweik
Date: 06 Feb 15 - 12:30 PM

not sort of, he has been cleared of one count.

---

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 06 Feb 15 - 03:41 PM

Unanimously.

- - -

Roy Harper cleared of indecently assaulting teenage girl
Roy Harper Roy Harper denies 10 sex offences

Folk-rock musician Roy Harper has been cleared of indecently assaulting a 16-year-old girl in the 1980s. Mr Harper, 73, of Rossmore, near Clonakilty, County Cork, Ireland, was unanimously acquitted by a jury at Worcester Crown Court.

Jurors are still considering verdicts on six other sexual offences alleged to have been committed against an 11-year-old girl in Herefordshire in the 1970s.

All the charges have been denied by Mr Harper.

The prosecution had alleged the musician assaulted the teenager at an address in Hereford between May and December 1980.

The court has heard the alleged abuse against the younger girl took place when Mr Harper was experiencing "a degree of fame" in the 1970s.

He denies the remaining counts of indecent assault, indecency with a child and having sexual intercourse with a child.

At the start of the trial, jurors were told complaints were made to police in 2012 and 2013 about the musician, who said nothing improper had happened with either complainant.

The jury has been sent home and will resume its discussions on the remaining counts on Friday.

---

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,DaveRo
Date: 06 Feb 15 - 04:05 PM

Jury discharged - some counts still outstanding:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-31170479

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 07:33 PM

You are all heart Jack!?

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Campin
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 08:51 AM

If they can't start the trial within a year, it looks like the prosecution is hoping he'll die before they have to admit they haven't got a case.

Incitement to racial hatred for his anti-Islamic stuff should have been a cold cert, though. Wouldn't it have been simpler just to tell Al-Qaeda where he lives?

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Phil Cooper
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 10:56 PM

Sorry the last thread went off without my missive. It's a different Roy Harper, Elliott. I've been a fan of the accused Roy for years. I'm aware that he's had psychological problems and substance issues for a long time. If he's guilty his artistry doesn't excuse that. It exists in a different place. I'm withholding judgement till I hear about the court findings.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 08:03 PM

The Wikipedia article says that Harper was due to appear in court in March, 2014; but the hearing was postponed to May. I didn't see any more recent information.

Up above, Arkie linked to a November 2013 Rolling Stone article the described the initial charges. Wikipedia calls him a folk rock singer, but Rolling Stone accuses him of being a folk singer.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Arkie
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 06:06 PM

This is the Roy Harper I know.

Roy

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Arkie
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 05:56 PM

Is this article what started this thread? I did not realize the Roy Harper I know ever was part of Pink Floyd.

Harper

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: alanabit
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 04:33 PM

I am a bit out of touch. Did the case ever go to trial and if it did, what was the outcome?

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 10:40 PM

Nick Harper's "Bloom":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhur9Xy1Z4w

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,sam
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 10:20 PM

his son nick Harper who is a singer wrote a song called bloom. look it up. always hinted it was about child sex abuse but would only say people would be hurt if he spoke about it. was it about his father? if so seems a lot knew what had gone on.

Subject: RE: Roy Rogers charged
From: GUEST,duffy
Date: 14 Jun 14 - 10:36 PM

i cant believe it, i loved him when i was growing up, and trigger too, surely dale noticed, eh, righty oh, its not the roy rogers page its roy harper, did HE have a horse???, and they sang "now the drugs dont work", not terribly sure about that. where am i, who am i etc etc etc...

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 05:53 AM

will be a trauma from which she'll never recover

I've personally known several individuals who were victims of adult sexual abuse - not just girls. None of them ever fully recovered from their experiences, no matter how complicit they each were in their abuse at the time; indeed, no matter how much they each cared for their abusers. Not one of them ever confided in their parents, nor, to my certain knowledge, sought out the counsel of others outside of their peer group. Though one was to became a counsellor of rape victims herself, she confessed to being canny enough to avoid being counselled on matters that were, and I quote 'nobody's business but my own'.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Rev Bayes
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 05:05 AM

>> Or are we to believe that he's kept it up and nobody said anything? That's hard to believe too.

I take it the whole Jimmy Saville thing passed you by entirely. Not only is it easy to believe, it's not even surprising.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: mayomick
Date: 23 Nov 13 - 06:57 PM

We should be careful about saying that if Harper is guilty of this crime it "will be a trauma from which she'll never recover". I have no sympathy with men who take advantage of kids and agree with everything else Jack Blandiver wrote in that post , but parents of abused girls and those who counsel the girls surely need to be able to tell them that they can in time fully recover and live normal lives after being abused?

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,kenny
Date: 23 Nov 13 - 02:11 PM

"... a [ court ] verdict of innocent must be meaningless".
One of the most depressing statements I've ever come across.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 23 Nov 13 - 10:03 AM

Matt wrote: ...as with many of these cases, it'll come down to one person's story versus another's. Juries are discouraged from pronouncing guilty verdicts if there is even a shred of doubt in their minds as to whether the evidence is convincing. The likelihood of Roy Harper receiving a guilty verdict is extremely slim, even if he is guilty…   But if there's next to no chance he could be convicted *even if he were guilty as hell*, then … a verdict of innocent must be meaningless.

I don't disagree with any of this. I'm only flagging it up to point out that, whatever verdict a legal trial may result in, he will forever be branded as Guilty in the court of the internet and the headline. That man has NO chance of ever being regarded as "innocent" again, whatever the true facts are, whatever the law says.

I only met Roy a couple of times, when I went to his house near Clonakilty to lay down some harp on a couple of tracks for a new album he was recording in his home studio some years ago; and then later in De Barra's where I was playing with some other trad musicians, which I used to do every Monday night. There were a few other people around in Roy's house the night I was there - a recording tecchie, one or two more. I don't recall any details, but can tell you that if the others on the scene had been strikingly under-age or remarkable in any way, I would have noticed and remembered. I don't know if they were lodgers, just visiting, there to do a job the same as I was, or what; but nothing struck me as odd, for what that's worth.

Afterwards we had a nice snack, sitting around Roy's impressive kitchen table, then I drove off to my gig. He was cordial, interesting and fun to talk to. I know this little anecdote can prove nothing either way, but since his character is now permanently up for public dissection (I'm referring to online forums and blogs generally, not Mudcat: this is a fairly sane and intelligent discussion) I'd just like to add my distinctly undramatic two cents. The rise of focused online Hating elsewhere spooks me, hence this post, a small attempt to redress the balance. As I say, it's not aimed at any of ye.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 23 Nov 13 - 09:11 AM

from the BBC article: "West Mercia Police said the offences are alleged to have been committed in Herefordshire between 1975 and 1977 and relate to one victim."

It's quite the skimpy article, isn't it? Levels the devastating charge but doesn't even say who the accuser actually was.

1975 was thirty-eight years ago. How does the accused check his calendar, give an alibi, find witnesses, from that long ago?

Also, criminologists tell us that pedophiles never stop and are almost impossible to reform. So is Harper the only one in the world who molested a child in 1975-1977 and then stopped? Or are we to believe that he's kept it up and nobody said anything? That's hard to believe too.

"Few forms of life are lower than a newspaperman."

                                 - P.G. Wodehouse, 1915

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 02:41 PM

Bit of a cheap shot, Matt - the woman who complained about Roy Harper "never reported the guy" either, until she did.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 12:56 PM

yeah, and there's also the fact that your Hawkwind-dating teenage friend (presumably) never reported the guy to the police for sexual abuse. Unlike, to state the obvious, the Roy Harper case.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 06:33 AM

TK - I think there are two separate issues there. One is whether different norms allowed some people to get away with behaviour that was abusive even then (stories about hotel maids being groped by passing celebs, etc). The other - which is more difficult - is whether those norms were themselves abusive.

Take the relationship between a 15-year-old and a 26-year-old DJ: 30 or 40 years ago, I think we would have had a mixed reaction to that, ranging (on the male side) from "dirty old man" through to "lucky bastard", but there would have been a basic assumption that these things happen & it's nobody else's business. Now our attention is much more on the power dynamics involved - who's going to dump whom, who's more likely to get hurt, who's going to feel confused and ashamed at the end of it and who's going to think "job done" and look for the next one. And there's always the suspicion that the power imbalance is actually part of the attraction of a relationship like that, for at least some people.

That doesn't mean that all relationships of that kind are or were bad. But a lot are/were - and any that aren't have a very high risk of going bad, much more so than relationships between two adults.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,TK
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 06:09 AM

It remains to be seen what the circumstances are about the accusations against Roy Harper. I am 57 year old woman who has been a fan since I bought one of his albums in 1970 aged 13. I love the later album that came out a couple of years later with the Forbidden Fruit track that has been discussed. Of course any coersion, exploitation and abuse are totally horrific and utterly,utterly unacceptable but would it have had to be like that.At13/14 I would have been fantasising about a tender/loving version of the activities. Would it have been a crime just because of age when as people have said that's a legal definition. Was I wrong?.Would I had been really been abused if I'd had the opportunity? Would he have been wrong ? Would I have regretted it ? I'm not sure but I feel confident we are not talking about hands up skirts and sleazy fumbles like recent cases. I know I am open to accusations of naivety but at 15 a friend lost her virginity to a member of Hawkwind and another was having a relationship with a 26 year old DJ. Nobody talked about it being abuse.I wonder how they feel about it now? I know for sure that life is not black and white.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 03:21 PM

Comparatively, of course not, but I would suggest that the Nurture boundaries are more or less sacrosanct within a given culture, though there's bound to be a bit of a - er - thinning of the veil at times with each case taken on individual merits, except in clear instances of actual (rather than statuary) abuse, and even then the 'rough band' wouldn't take too much provocation to come out in force.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 01:04 PM

Agreed, Sean. But read that wiki entry I ref to, & contemplate the differences within the parameters established in various adjacent nations; & reflect that there is no consensus as to precisely where within the life-cycle that 'Nurture' to which you appeal should take legal effect. So, I reiterate, a legal concept, not a law of nature -- nor yet, fwiw, an inalienable or unalterable law of nurture!

~M~

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 12:57 PM

It must be pointed out, just as a general consideration, that the 'age of consent', wherever fixed, is a legal concept, not a law of nature.

It's a case of Nurture triumphing over Nature here, Michael; cultural and societal laws are there for good reason - in this case for the protection of kids from predatory paedophiles. Kids is kids, no matter how 'adult' they might be biologically.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 12:14 PM

There actually is a proper definition which distinguishes between paedos, and pervs who lust after post pubescent underage kids ?

I think the word is "ephebophile". Not that it makes much difference, as you say - it's differently wrong, but 99% of the time it's no less wrong.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,trapper
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 11:53 AM

6 Music runs an interesting interview series where a music star
outlines the songs that shaped their career. It was pretty bad luck,
then, to last week choose an iconic old folk performer and then see headlines about how he was charged with having unlawful sex with a schoolgirl under the age of 13, when you've got a show called "The First Time With Roy Harper" to put out.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 11:07 AM

My recollection is, though JLL's marriage to a 13 year old was legal in Mississippi at that time, sexual relations outside of that would have been very illegal.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 10:27 AM

"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."

There actually is a proper definition which distinguishes between paedos,
and pervs who lust after post pubescent underage kids ?

Who can remember what it is ? it's obviously not a word in common useage.

Not that an obscure accademic classification makes any difference in the real world
regarding the abuse of minors by predatory adults.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 10:14 AM

It must be pointed out, just as a general consideration, that the 'age of consent', wherever fixed, is a legal concept, not a law of nature. When Shax wrote R&J, the ancient ruling from C14 was that it should be 12. The present law is late C19. Wikipedia states

"A concern that young girls were being sold into brothels led Parliament to raise the age of consent to 13 in 1875 under the Offences against the Person Act 1875. After W. T. Stead's Maiden Tribute articles, the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 raised the age of consent to 16."


Wikipedia's article "Ages of consent in Europe" is informative as to the variations which persist to this day, just in Europe.

So all the faff about Juliet &c is beside the point. (As, to drift a bit, was the statement that someone, I forget who, who should have known better, complained that Shax had been encouraging premarital sex, when R&J were in fact a most proper & exemplarily moral young couple, who took all the trouble to meet at Friar Laurence's cell to get married before they would go to bed.)

Jerry Lee Lewis's marriage was moreover perfectly lawful in the state where it occurred. The extent to which he was breaking any laws by having intercourse with his lawful wife in states & countries where the age of consent was higher than her actual age at the time, I believe remains something of a woolly area.

~M~

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 08:33 AM

Fanny Blair etc. are reflections of the common minded sensationalism you often find it broadside ballads, similar to that you find in tabloids today. Even so in revival performances the age is often upped in compliance with modern standards, and rightly so. I sing it myself (from the Peter Bellamy version) but only when I'm out on my bicycle, never in public. I sing 'Earl Brand' (Hey Lilly, o Lilly) in public though, which features a feisty young thing of 'scarcely fifteen years' but then again Shakespeare's Juliet was the same age, and God thought nothing of knocking up Mary before her 15th birthday.

Things are, thank goodness, very different today. We grant our young the joys of a long happy childhood. We empower them against the evils of predatory adults, and I'm sure if God has any plans for a second coming he'd wait until she as least 21 before sending his holy spirit to - er - move upon her.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 05:53 AM

"What were they thinking, allowing a twelve year old to spend time alone with an adult male? "

I can't believe somebody even thought that, let alone made it public.

All academic anyway. There's a paradox at work regarding the eventual verdict, in that a verdict of innocent can only be meaningless. Here's why...

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Roy Harper were guilty of the nine counts he's been charged with. After all these years, the likelihood of any substantial evidence existing is slim. That there could be any material evidence is next to impossible. That there were any eyeball witnesses is highly unlikely. So, as with many of these cases, it'll come down to one person's story versus another's.

Juries are discouraged from pronouncing guilty verdicts if there is even a shred of doubt in their minds as to whether the evidence is convincing. The likelihood of Roy Harper receiving a guilty verdict is extremely slim, even if he is guilty.

So, to state the obvious, a verdict of innocent could, of course, mean he's innocent. But if there's next to no chance he could be convicted *even if he were guilty as hell*, then, ergo, for thinking people, a verdict of innocent must be meaningless.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 04:29 AM

Juliet was 12 when she went with Romeo.
That ended badly.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Dave Sutherland
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 04:16 AM

We "folk singers" had better drop "Fanny Blair" from our repertoire mighty quickly.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 04:03 AM

They played Gilbert O'Sullivan's Claire on the wireless this morning. Listening to the words, you could predict operation Yewtree using writing the song as prima facea evidence of intent. .....

Roy Harper has questions to answer. Looking into words of songs he wrote doesn't help. When I was 16 I was writing songs. One that didn't stand the test of time was called Christine. About a lady in her 40s who took me to bed when I was 15.

Dunno if it scarred me or not. I certainly learned how to strut. ....

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 02:38 AM

Peter K Fionn said

"Just underlying Richard Bridge's point about the "fantasy of the era" Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin and his career hardly faltered"

That is a truly amazing thing to say!

His career took an - almost - total nose dive!
After he left Britain "in disgrace" his chart successes totally dried up and it wasn't until four years later that he had another hit.
And even that was a minor hit.
It was similar story in the States.
Indeed, it took Jerry Lee until the late 60s to really establish himself as a major artist again, and then as a country music star.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 02:19 AM

well it did falter for a while. a very few years before these offences were allegedly committed the age for marriage in Ireland was 12.

Everything has gone weird really. George Harrison was considered a working man at fifteen. Lots of kids I used to teach in Brum after school (in the 70's went off to do a shift in the jewellry quarter after school.

then there was that case of the twelve year old who got married to a boy on her holidays in Turkey quite recently. Apparently she said, he made me feel beautiful - and in England lots of people are made to feel ugly from media pressure.

now in England we are raising the school age to eighteen - I can remember what they called ROSLA - the raising of the school age to 16 - and how really pissed off kids were because adulthood was being delayed.

of course, paedophilia and child rape are odious, and not to be tolerated. but there seems to me to me a degree of confusion in our thinking about maturity - sexual and otherwise

.whether harper is a folksinger or not, I've never thought of him as amonster. on the contrary there is humour and humanity in his lyrics

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 07:57 PM

Just underlying Richard Bridge's point about the "fantasy of the era" Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin and his career hardly faltered.