 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 04 Jul 14 - 03:24 AM Jeri, I can only assume you closed the thread on Rolf Harris down? I'm not sure why, other than a usual comment aimed at me was in there. I know you don't like me, Jeri, that's been obvious for many years now, BUT, in case you don't know, the Operation Yewtree trials are tearing this country apart at present and there is a LOT to be said about what is going on. I DARED to have a different opinion to everyone else in that thread, and for that you've CLOSED the thread down? Yes, when I'm passionate about something, I will write a lot about that subject, because I research it and try my best to get others to open their closed down minds about things... I also endure all the bullshit aimed at me, which is always done by the same people...Yet, you barely EVER say a word to, or about, those people, many of whom are very vindictive towards me. I found the whole business of Rolf Harris suddenly being turned into an evil, foul, putrid man, equal to Savile in every way, abhorrent, and I was actually staggered that so many in Mudcat were going along with what they're being told by the press, as I thought they had somewhat more intelligent minds.... I realize I was obviously wrong and they will be partying today when Rolf is given his sentence.... I feel despair over my species..... I feel despair that a former Operation Yewtree Officer was on Big Brother, for WHERE is the INTEGRITY of such a man if he does such a thing? These officers are tearing apart the lives of many innocent people and yet, they themselves are appearing on smutty/pornographic/dumbeddown bullshit TV programmes???????? Something is VERY Rotten in The State of Britain, as it is in Mudcat, which is these days, sadly, ruled by Mods who have personal likes and dislikes of various posters, to the point where Free Speech is curtailed, over and over.... I know remember why I left Mudcat for so long...... I'll leave you all to your 'Hang The Bastards!' parties......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Dave the Gnome Date: 04 Jul 14 - 03:55 AM I was actually staggered that so many in Mudcat were going along with what they're being told by the press No, so many have gone along with the findings of the Jury. If there is an appeal and it is upheld we will also go along with that. they will be partying today when Rolf is given his sentence Again no. There has been no indication that anyone is happy about the situation. You are reading what you believe into the posts, not what is actually there. Most people have said they are shocked and saddened. I think you are out of line saying what you do about the Mudcat members and it's moderation team. The only person who can see these things seems to be you, Lizzie. Maybe you are just out of step with the rest. Nothing wrong with that but would you not be happier in a forum that has members with views more in line with your own? Maybe, when you say you are going to leave you should really do it. Not that I believe for a single minute that you will. Good luck and, hopefully, goodbye. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 04 Jul 14 - 04:02 AM As the OP, I'm rather annoyed that (as with several threads on Mudcat) certain people (or person) have spoilt it for the rest. I was enjoying the viewpoints put forward by a wide variety of posters, and the different angles being considered. Rather than shut the whole thing down, might it not have been better to remove any posts considered offensive or unacceptable, so that those remaining could continue their discussion? On other forums I dip into, the moderators don't seem to chuck the baby out with the bathwater in this way. They remove unacceptable material and the thread continues. Very disappointing, especially as the thread is left hanging in the air as we await Harris's sentencing today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Musket Date: 04 Jul 14 - 04:16 AM They don't do hanging sentences these days.. On a serious note, the person who spoilt the thread is the one starting this thread to complain about it. With her spurious nonsense here, you can see exactly how she isn't fit to be let loose on public forums. That said, the moderation these days is getting unpredictable and often makes the reading of a thread look as if decent people have no answer to the more nasty elements of society who spew their hatred and bigotry on these pages in the name of free speech. Ironic that they also manage to stifle those who don't let them get away with it. That wasn't about Lizzie Cornish though. Her posts just don't make any sense whatsoever... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 04 Jul 14 - 04:35 AM Indeed they don't, Musket. But one can scroll down (sometimes for several lines!) until these posts come to an end, ignore them and continue as usual. To bar the rest from carrying on the interesting discourse is a bit irritating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,TT Date: 04 Jul 14 - 04:38 AM It's really very simple. Lizzie wasn't at the trial. Lizzie doesn't believe what she reads in the media. Lizzie 'knows' by some mysterious sense not granted to the rest of us that Rolf Harris is innocent and all the women who complained are lying. Any attempt to point out errors of fact in her posts is greeted the written equivalent of one of those slightly disturbing people who stand in the street ranting. For what it's worth, I was surprised by the verdict, but I was not in court, have not read a court report and can only use what I know from the media to make judgement, and I accept that media reports are not adequate for this purpose. (And by the way, Lizzie, if I don't respond to your future posts on this thread, it's because I won't be in range of a computer for the next few days.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 04 Jul 14 - 04:39 AM Perhaps the mods closed the thread, LIZZIE (are you listening?) because it was getting silly! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 04 Jul 14 - 05:36 AM I tend to sympatise with your POV Lizzie, but must admit your posts have been pretty "colourful" and confrontational. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Jack Blandiver Date: 04 Jul 14 - 05:57 AM Just junked my Rolf Harris collection in dismay. The end of our nation's innocence? The end of mine certainly! I've even taken the batteries out of my Stylophone as a measure of my disillusionment, though (fearing the worst) I took my remix of Fijian Girl down off Soundcloud over a year ago. Big deal, I know, but this one guts us all hollow. Isa lei, isa lei... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST Date: 04 Jul 14 - 06:09 AM Operation Yewtree is not tearing this country apart. As someone who suffered sexual abuse as a child, and who has never reported it to any authority, I am heartened to see so many people getting closure in adulthood. To be clear, the two things that prevent me from formally disclosing are fear of what this would do to my family, and the kind of suspicion and mistrust evidenced by Lizzie. I would rather keep my truth private than to have the abuse I suffered compounded by hysterical women-hating crap. For the record, not going public does not mean never disclosing. Those closest to me know what happened. The fact that Rolf Harris's victims never publicly accused him doesn't mean they never told anyone, or suddenly found themselves traumatised in adulthood. Plenty of people do talk about it to a few people they trust. But those who don't are no less trustworthy, and their pain is no less real. Shane on you, Lizzie. You awful, awful woman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Backwoodsman Date: 04 Jul 14 - 06:09 AM The Guardian today reports that RH's computer had been used for viewing pornographic images of girls as young as 13, but that the charges relating to this were separated from those of which he has been found guilty. It seems that a decision on whether to prosecute is still pending, IIUC. Aren't you starting to feel even slightly silly, Lizzie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Jul 14 - 06:46 AM I am acquainted with people who suffered sexual abuse (one said to me "I've been sexually active since the age of 3, not by choice"). She did not wear her heart on her sleeve about it, and until you knew her well I think no-one would have guessed the facts - but with the benefit of disclosure and hindsight, I think it was obvious it created difficulties for her. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Jul 14 - 06:49 AM Just read the final victim submissions before sentencing. Can't help feeling that Lizzie has made up her mind without actually reading any of the reports or background. The best Harris could maintain at his trial was that he was that sort of touchy-feely person, & didn't remember ever being in Cambridge [till shown a video of him there]. He has made no real attempt to deny the actual charges. It is all, as I remarked several times on the original thread, all too horribly sad for words; but the jury's findings seem quite unassailable. One knows Lizzie: she means well; likes to think the best of people; can often be prolix & repetitive and lacking in an edit button: but much of what she says is often to the point if one seeks the nugget of truth among all the verbiage. But not here. Honestly don't know what can have got into you this time Lizzie...! ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: theleveller Date: 04 Jul 14 - 07:00 AM I'm a fairly infrequent visitor to Mudcat these days and I haven't read all that you posted on the other thread, Lizzie, but I'd just like to make a couple of points. Firstly, you either believe in the trial by jury system or you don't. True, sometimes mistakes are made, but if you think they made the wrong decision in the case of Rolf Harris, does that not throw into question their decisions in the cases of Bill Roache, Michael Le Vell and Dave Lee Travis? You can't have it both ways. Secondly, is it not a good thing that, finally, women abused by 'celebrities' are coming forward? I don't know whether you're claiming that Savile was wrongly accused but, if so, you're wrong. 65 years ago my mother-in-law, at the age of 17, was raped by Savile. She was too ashamed to tell anyone at the time, or later, until after the death of her husband because she didn't want him to know. So she had to live with this for much of her life. Only now, when the truth is emerging, can she feel some catharsis. How many more women must feel the seem? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: akenaton Date: 04 Jul 14 - 07:25 AM I don't think Lizzie thinks the jury could have acquitted Mr Harris, but that there is something very wrong about how these cases are handled.....there is something prurient about today's society. We seem to be working in two different time frames, if all the "groupies" of the sixties came forward to claim sexual abuse, the criminal justice system would implode. The abuse of children, if proven, is indefensible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 04 Jul 14 - 07:25 AM I am TOTALLY with Eliza on this. > I was enjoying the viewpoints put forward by a wide variety of posters, and the different angles being considered. Rather than shut the whole thing down, might it not have been better to remove any posts considered offensive or unacceptable, so that those remaining could continue their discussion? > Don't … chuck the baby out with the bathwater in this way [but just] remove unacceptable material and the thread continues. > One can scroll down (sometimes for several lines!) until these posts come to an end, ignore them and continue as usual. To bar the rest from carrying on the interesting discourse is a bit irritating. More than "a bit". It would be great if everybody could please stop responding to other people's messages and stick to the original topic, which started out as an intelligent exchange of views & experience regarding this sorry case. Just let those individuals talk to themselves - that type of visual isolation really does speak volumes, believe me. Mudcat needs as much constructive input as it can get - it's been so decimated by the grim reaper and those choosing to leave (not to mention competition from other social media) that it should nurture all the good content it can muster, not zap it. The extended-conversation and archive aspects are one of this forum's great strengths. But the wholesale truncation of perfectly worthwhile threads just discourages us from bothering to put in the effort. (Facebook comments make a mayfly look long-lived, and it's nigh unto impossible to find anything again later. Also their visibility is generally limited to one's Friends so not everyone even sees it.) Is there ANY chance of re-opening Eliza's thread, and - in Mod's big red letters - instructing everybody to ignore personal opinions which they disagree with, perhaps on pain of deletion? And combine it with this one, which does also offer some good points? #whistlinginthewind |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,semi Lizzie supporter Date: 04 Jul 14 - 07:27 AM Just a simple repost of something I contributed in a previous thread: "Subject: RE: Why Do Musicians Work For Nothing? From: GUEST, Date: 02 Jun 14 - 11:03 AM Biggest prolem with Lizzie is that she can be such a relentlessly obnoxious bore. Which is a shame, because sometimes she proves capable of revealing a very incisive eloquent talent for promoting positive valid arguements from an alternative or unpopular standpoint. Unfortunately, she is her own worse enemy, constantly undermining her credibility & reputation with abject streams of unrestrained self indulgent wrong headed drivel. None of us can sustain a life/persona as rejected martyrs and victims for such a length of time, it's not healthy..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 04 Jul 14 - 07:44 AM Well, I am a bit suspicious! Why, for instance, did it take the jury a week to come up with it's verdict? Surely, that indicates that his guilt wasn't that straightforward in the minds of some of the jury. Also, these images found on Rolf's computer. Rather timely! We know the police sometimes "bend" the facts to suit their case ( Hillsborough and plebgate, come to mind). Again, I am rather suspicious about aspects of this case. The other thing that bothers me about these "historic crimes" is how come none of those teachers that belted the living daylights out of me 50 odd years ago aren't being held accountable! Also, the mental cruelty that I suffered, as a child, at the hands of Catholic zealots will never be investigated by Yewtree! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 04 Jul 14 - 07:44 AM It appears that Rolf Harris's crimes are merely the tip of a deeply sordid iceberg. If the truth finally emerges about the goings on, allegedly involving senior politicians and at least one squeaky clean pop star, at the Elm Guest House in Barnes, Rolf will seem like a bit part player in comparison. As long ago as the mid 1980s, I recall hearing the rumours about one former senior cabinet minister who was supposedly up to his neck in it. I hope the whole story does come out, but given the many years during which the establishment have apparently closed ranks, we may never know the whole story and the suspects who are still alive may never be brought to justice. In the meantime, I'm glad we have Yewtree. It could be argued that it's too little too late, but victims of sexual abuse need closure, and I''m saddened to see that some people continue to promote what is essentially a pro-abuser, anti-victim mentality that echoes the cover ups and excuses of the past. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 04 Jul 14 - 07:53 AM For future reference: BS: Rolf Harris Found Guilty of 12 Offences http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=154892&messages=132 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:12 AM Lizzie, when any of us take time to advise you on the positive pragmatic benefits of structuring your arguements as briefly and concisely to the point as possible, [ie: the simple established time proven basic tenets of 'effective communication'; the foundations of any form of effective public discourse, journalism, media reporting, campaigning activism, etc] this is constructive advice offered out of friendly concern for you. Not any form of patronising attack, negative criticism, or insult. Some of us still have remnants of respect and admiration for you, which you are sadly eroding as you constantly flagrantly & arrogantly dismiss any attempts to help you restrain the worst self-destructive excesses of your most self indulgent egotistical diatribes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:32 AM Once upon a time I thought that we were needlessly nasty to MLC - but I realised that I was wrong. Time has proven her to be totally irrational. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Mr Red Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:32 AM History is written by the victors. And the victors are the ones with the power. That is often the ones with the money. However the state and its voters have more collective money and power. This has really been triggered by the Savile scandal. It takes a certain threshold. The pity is that in many cases people knew about Savile and Harris but how do you spread the word in the face of slander & libel litigation? Communication! Farcebook is no good, people will say anything there, and always do. I just hope that the puritanical zeal that is currently swamping our culture does not reach the excesses that saw a pediatrician seriously harrassed 20 years ago because there are vigilantes who can't spell pedophile. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Vic Smith Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:36 AM Shane on you, Lizzie. You awful, awful woman. Poor old Shane! He has done nothing wrong. What has he done to deserve Lizzie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Musket Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:37 AM The convicted criminal is on his way from the court to begin his five and a bit year sentence in prison. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:47 AM I see that Harris has been sentenced to five years and nine months. He's been taken to Wandsworth prison, but probably won't serve his sentence there. I expect he'll go to nan open prison such as Hollesley Bay. Apparently he should be our in three years' time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Ed Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:51 AM Tunesmith says, Well, I am a bit suspicious! Why, for instance, did it take the jury a week to come up with it's verdict? Surely, that indicates that his guilt wasn't that straightforward in the minds of some of the jury. Also, these images found on Rolf's computer. Rather timely! Erm, the jury reached their verdicts after less than 38 hours for 12 charges, so just over 3 hours per charge. Does that seem excessive? Also the images on his computer were found in 2012. Try and get some facts right before you do a 'Lizzie' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:59 AM Not 'nan', 'an'! And not 'our' but 'out'. Have just got back from my little cleaning job, and my fingers are as stiff as sticks! Nearly dropped my buttered crumpet. Need my afternoon nap. I agree with everything that has been said above about people who've been abused suffering in silence because they fear being disbelieved, or hurting members of the family etc. And just because other molestations go unpunished, it doesn't logically follow that one should therefore disregard all the instances that come before the Courts. I'm sure that all verdicts are arrived at as being 'beyond reasonable doubt', and as we have seen, not all cases are so proved. One either subscribes to our judicial system or endures anarchy. The total sentence could have been as high as 14yrs, so 5yrs 9mnths is much reduced, probably with regard to Harris's age. He has the right of appeal of course, but that usually demands either new evidence in his defence, or an accusation of a miscarriage of justice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:01 AM It behooves us to keep some distance from what the media and public spokespersons tell us. The case has several distinct aspects:
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Jack Campin Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:06 AM (fearing the worst) I took my remix of Fijian Girl down off Soundcloud over a year ago. Big deal, I know, but this one guts us all hollow. Isa lei, isa lei... "Isa lei" is a Fijian folksong - not sure which version I first heard back in the late 50s, maybe Inia Te Wiata, but definitely not Rolf Harris and it was news to me that he'd ever covered it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Dave the Gnome Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:07 AM The justice system, flawed as it may be, is the best we can do. It is right in the vast majority of cases and I suspect that far more criminals get away with it because of the flawed system than innocent people get punished by it. I have no statistics to back this up but on the basis of the number of scumbags you see walking out of court with a grin it seems a fair hypothesis. However, they have been found innocent and it is right that they should be freed. Just as if someone is found guilty they should be punished. An analogy can be found in the moderation system here. It may be flawed, but it is the best we have. If you live here, you must live with the system! Sad thing is that on some scores, Lizzie is right. The media circus involved should be removed from the justice system. I do not believe that we should know the identity of the accused before the verdict. There is nothing of 'the public interest' in it. It is only in the interests of the media moguls. Unfortunately, Lizzie, with her inimitable style has once again cuckolded a good argument. If the judgement against Harris is wrong then so could the one against Andy Coulson. I do not see Lizzie standing up for him though. Why is that? Well, rhetorical question I suppose. What is the point... Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: The Sandman Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:19 AM I have to ask myself what is the point of prison sentences, if it is to stop the miscreant from performing the crime again, then this is a pointless sentence, if it is to stop others performing the same crime, will it be effective? if it is to satisfy those people including myself who are disgusted by predatory abuse, then we will feel better, if it it is for the victims to feel that they have at last been listened and have got some partial justice then it will partly achieve its purpose, the problem in my opinion is that no amount of prison sentences or money can compensate for being abused, for a child to have innocence and the rest of their life spoiled, how can this be compensated for? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:19 AM Rolf Harris did indeed record Fijian Girl. I well remember it on the radio, and the lines '...the wilting frangipani blossoms drift away...' always struck me as rather poignant. It's on one of those 'Best of Rolf Harris' discs. How many lovely, haunting and funny songs he sang! So so shocking it's come to this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Ed Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:24 AM I do not believe that we should know the identity of the accused before the verdict. So how would that work, Dave? All trials behind closed doors? No public galleries? No friends or relatives of the defendant or the alleged victim allowed to observe? Surely a degree of openness helps ensure fairness. Besides, the practicalities of managing to get all the protagonists in and out of court every day without anyone noticing would present a logistical nightmare. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Dave the Gnome Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:29 AM Punishment is rarely a deterrent, Dick. Not many people commit crimes believing that they will be caught! Stop people committing the same crimes? Yes, I think so. But it should be a combination of restricting their freedom to do so and a program of rehabilitation if possible. In the Harris case it may be pointless on both scores but,to be fair, the justice system has to treat everyone even-handedly. Then we get vengeance and compensation. I think I said in the other thread that recompense must be made to the victims but on the vengeance side I am, thankfully, not in a position to comment. Complicated issue and thanks for re-addressing it. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:30 AM The censorship of material produced by convicted offendors is a separate matter. Should we pretend that people like Harris and Saville haed no part in late 20th century culture? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:33 AM Ah, GSS, that's something I never could sort out in my head. After visiting prisoners and getting some insight into prison life, I used to ask myself all the same questions that you just did. I certainly don't think it's much of a deterrent. And I'm afraid I didn't see much reform going on. With regard to violent offenders, robbers, burglars, abusers etc, it does keep them off the streets, but they're inevitably let out later, so the brief 'holiday' for the rest of us will be over. It isn't fashionable or PC to mention the word 'punishment' but the loss of liberty is certainly that. And the victims of any crime have the right to see the perpetrator punished. I asked many prison officers what they thought prison was for, and most had no firm answer, except as a punitive course of action. They were too savvy to think that any reform took place. Recidivism is sky high. Harris will go first to an Induction Wing or Unit. He'll be given his prison clothes, inmate number, phone card, bedlinen and a towel and shown to his cell. He'll be visited by the prison Chaplain and the Governor. He'll be put on suicide watch for about a week. He'll be allowed one family visit on the Convicted Wing, then he'll be transferred probably as I said to an open prison, where visits are monthly. He'll most likely be encouraged to continue with his art, and even give lessons to other inmates. As a convicted sex-offender, he'll be 'on the numbers', which means kept away from other types of offenders. But nowadays, they're experimenting with integrating all inmates. A bit risky, as someone may try to attack him. It isn't too bad inside; the worst thing is the other folk in there - they can be absolutely ghastly and make one's life a misery. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Dave the Gnome Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:34 AM So how would that work, Dave? I dunno, Ed. I'm not that clever! I should clarify that I mean only in this type of case. How do they manage to keep the identity of some victims secret yet not the accused? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:38 AM 5 years 9 months. "That doesn't seem long enough" - I bet that's not what his victims said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: The Sandman Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:40 AM I think that 3 years comuunity service should have been added to his sentence, I realise that my next comment might be considered cranky, but if people want revenge and to see the convicted person humiliated, why are the stocks not re introduced for convicted paedophiles, a cheap way for people to humiliate the abuser and gain revenge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:40 AM I believe that all court cases should be in full public view unless national security is threatened. Otherwise you have secret goings-on, and it's in all our interest to have everything out in the open. 'Justice should be seen to be done' is IMO a wise ideal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:43 AM Ed, we simply have to curtail the media's "right" to publish accounts until AFTER the trial has been concluded. Then by all means vilify the guilty (if you must) but not before a JURY, and not the media, has found them GUILTY. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,Doc John Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:02 AM Judges are always harsher on the convicted who show no remorse. If you are innocent, how can you and why should you show remorse; by doing so you would admit your guilt. If I'm ever arrested for 'inappropriately' (the bull shitters' word)touching a girl I've never met in a place I've never been to, I think I'll opt for trial by battle. One question to ask yourself: a boy goes to boarding school and is touched 'inappropriately' by a master. The same school practices corporal punishment and the boys are forced to play rugby and box. Leaving aside our current prejudices and obsessions, where might the real, lasting harm come from? Remember Rolf Harris isn't Ian Brady. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:27 AM ad ho·mi·nem I closed the last thread because it had reduced to a he said/she said series of running ad hominem attacks against Lizzie. It seems no good deed goes unpunished, here is Lizzie starting another thread on the same topic so more people can badger her. The topic was Rolf Harris, so why on earth is Lizzie's married life coming into this? Resume your conversation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Dave the Gnome Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:31 AM Eliza, 'Justice should be seen to be done' Agreed, but why should the accused be tried by media before the jury returns it's verdict? By all means have trials that are open and auditable but to keep the accusers identity secret while that of the accused is emblazoned across the airwaves just seems unfair. Well, to me anyway. But like I said to Ed, I am not clever enough to propose a solution. Maybe keep the courtrooms free of the media and impose sanctions on any publishing details? Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Claire M Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:31 AM Hiya! Why isn't it too bad inside?? It should be! It's very sad. Mum used to break into RH's Pavlova song when she made 1. He used to sing it like this. ( the start anyway) this I was only small when I 1st heard it , now @ 31 it still cracks me up. Is that wrong?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Dave the Gnome Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:47 AM I'm not convinced that the ad hominem attacks are all one way. Sorry, Stilly, but people are only human. If they are attacked, they will defend themselves. Going back to the first thread I find, in Lizzies opening diatribe But fuck it, you all carry on believing whatever they tell you to believe and never step back to question a damn thing... and, in this one I'll leave you all to your 'Hang The Bastards!' parties......... If those are not "arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic" I don't know what is. OK, so we are grown ups and should know better but when someone attacks over and over and over again something gives. Anyway, apologies if I seemed to be punishing a good deed. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: The Sandman Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:48 AM Stilly river sage, thanks for closing the previous thread,imo it need to be closed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:50 AM "The censorship of material produced by convicted offendors is a separate matter. Should we pretend that people like Harris and Saville haed no part in late 20th century culture?" Well, I am not going to stop enjoying Alice Coopers cover of "Sun Arise". Or the best of Gary Glitter's greatest hits. Even if I need to resort to only ever listening on headphones, in case pea brained vigilante neighbours or passers-by hear faint sounds through our front bay window and decide to post petrol soaked flaming dog shit through our letterbox... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Jul 14 - 11:08 AM I find, in Lizzies opening diatribe . . . There is that, Dave. Absence doesn't make the heart grow fonder if you come back with a huge chip on your shoulder. |