BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 06:59 AM

I agree you were bullied and victimised.
I was not on the jury, and I agree there have been many miscarriages of justice in the past, however from what I have read so far in the media, my conclusion is that Rolf Harris is NOT INNOCENT.
An appeal might change the verdict, let us wait and see.Ifind it much more worrying that there appears to have been a cover up by the establishment to protect those much more powerful than Harris, harris and saville could be being used as scapegoats even though to my eyes they appear to be guilty.
I want to see those who have been abusing children and abusing their positions of power and covering up brought to justice too, Iam sure you do as well, Lizzie.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 06:58 AM

Last entry for today.

You may have missed this. I've only just found it myself.

Odd, is it not?
But, there I go again....questioning, questioning......

For those who can't open Youtube, this is about the diary entry of the woman who said he'd abused her from the age of 13, going on to having a 10 year affair with her. In the diary entry about her holiday, the one where she stated Rolf first began abusing her, she put down what a lovely time she'd had...telling the Defence that whilst she had not entered anything about what she said Rolf had done, she did have a lovely holiday.

A lovely holiday?   He allegedly sexually abused her, but she had a lovely holiday?


Also, after he had finished their affair, she asked the very man she claims to have been terrified of (he kept her in this affair due to the terror she had of him, so she has stated) if he would give her £25,000 for a 'donation' to a bird sanctuary Rolf declined.

When asked why she would even have approached the very man she was so scared of, who had totally torn apart her life apparently, she said that he had told her he would always help her, if she needed help.

He spoke of her asking him for this money in court, saying she had told him that she'd go to the press if he did not give it to her. I seem to recall he said she and her brother would do this, but in this video they state it was she and her boyfriend.


Questions over Diary Entries

I'll leave you all to draw your own conclusions......

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 05:34 AM

Rubbish, Musket....

Of course this information would have led to an increase in his sentence!

The judge himself did NOT allow it to be used because these sites were *adult* sites. The prosecution lawyer was said to have been very angry about this.

If she had been able to use that evidence, she would have, over and over again, loudly, incessantly....

The police would have pushed EVERY button to have got him prosecuted too. For them NOT to have done so would mean they condone child pornography and are not interested in guilty people being brought to justice for such dire offences.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 05:29 AM

Al, I find it extraordinary that a man can repeatedly get his hands inside women's/children's knickers, in full view of other people, in full view of cameras, in full view of his wife, yet never has anyone else seen this happen, nor spoken out about it if they have...

I find it extraordinary that the police are NOT going to prosecute him for the photos they claim to have found, two years back, when NOT to prosecute him would be the British Police condoning child porn on the internet.   However, they did manage to ensure that this piece of news was the FINAL chapter they left in the minds of the public.

I find it extraordinary that Rolf's apparent 'reputation' was not known about all over the world by everyone, as so many women are now coming forward to say such extraordinary things.

I find it extraordinary that so many people who DID work with him, where there were children around too, have stated that at NO time did they EVER see him behave in any way other than in a very professional manner..and that people who've known him for years, worked with him for years, have stated that yes, he was a very touchy/feely person (I am too, many of us used to be before The Feministas and the Politically Correct Police took over our lives)...but at NO time were his hugs or kisses EVER sexual in their opinion.

I have NO idea WTF is going on, to be honest.

When the evidence is presented before me, then I will believe some of these stories.

Please remember though, that MY name and reputation has been dragged through terrible shite. For around 2 years I had to endure a vicious, vile blog about me, by the friend of my second (now ex)husband. The man who put this blog online has since apologized profusely, following Michael's attempted suicide last December. This was nothing to do with me and all to do with what was going on out there in America between them. His friend also told me that my ex had, in his life, got through women 'faster than shit through a goose' (Oh, joy) making out ALL those women, myself included, were insane, vile people. (cue jokes from the usual suspects in here about 'Well, he was right about *you*, eh, Lizzie!'

So I tend to stand right back, try to search out as much *evidence* as I can when something doesn't feel 'right' about someone, because I know, KNOW, that many people out there are pathological liars, emotionally disturbed, for many reasons, or simply want their '5 minutes of fame' because they need attention from others to keep them going.

WHEN that evidence arrives...then I'll believe these stories.

The local paper in Portsmouth, that I'm ringing tomorrow, has already had their archives searched, to see if Rolf ever was in that community centre, as mentioned in my previous post....They found nothing, but I'll ring them tomorrow anyway, just to talk to them about it, see what they think. Oddly, they've printed the story about the woman who states he abused her there, when she was 7, despite KNOWING they themselves have NO evidence in their records to prove this, which again, I find incomprehensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Musket
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 05:06 AM

"We have no evidence he did anything other than what the police are saying and they are not going to prosecute him."

If anybody took this woman seriously, she'd be a menace.

The police don't prosecute. The CPS consider the evidence the police have and make a decision based on more than just quality of evidence. They also take the public interest clause into account and if what I heard in the BBC interview with DPP is correct, and my ears were syringed recently thank you, that is the case here. It was decided that had this been part of the case, it may not have led to any increase in sentence, hence not in the public interest to prosecute. The police, as ever, just collected evidence and presented it to CPS as is their duty.

Eliza. My reference to FBI was about a spate of prosecutions a few years ago. I was making the point to Q about the criminal offence of possessing images and also pointed out that whatever the law is in The USA, the FBI have assisted our police in catching such criminals in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 04:44 AM

But we have no evidence he did, Eliza, other than what the police are saying and they are NOT going to prosecute him. Why? IF he has been doing such things, he SHOULD be prosecuted, surely?   I find it extraordinary that he would not be.

Of course, no-one can tell who is sitting at a computer at any given time.

NEVER let anyone you know, or don't know, use YOUR computer by the way, because you just don't know...

This morning, we have Vanessa Feltz (don't even get me started on Vanessa) saying Rolf, whilst lying on a bed with her during an interview (????) got the hem of her dress in her hand and started to roll her kaftan up, until his hand reached her thigh, where he tried to get inside her underwear. He did this very fast, whilst she was interviewing him, whilst the cameras were rolling, whilst the TV crew were all around the bed, whilst his wife was watching. She cut to an advert and whispered in his ear, "what the fuck do you think you're doing?", apparently. She said he merely smiled.

So far, no footage of this incident is 'out there', but perhaps it may turn up shortly, for like the other presenter in Oz, who said he abused *her* during a TV interview, watched by a friend of hers who was in the studio at the time, and, I presume, the entire camera crew and production team, no-one would throw away or destroy that kind of evidence, would they?

Apparently, she was warned by the make-up girls to watch out for him, as he was known to have wandering hands....but no-one thought interviewing such a man on a bed, lying down close to a presenter was a silly idea, despite so many people apparently knowing all about him, nor did they use that opportunity to 'catch him' and finally, pardon the pun, put to bed, all the whispers/rumours that had been rife, everywhere, so they could protect other women from him, forever.

If the footage appears, and shows this incident very clearly, then yes, I will believe he did this. Different TV cameras are trained on the main interview and guests from different angles, as far I am aware, so hopefully, this will soon come to light and we can all be 100% certain about everything. Odd that Vanessa has only now come out with this story though...

I'd have thought it would have broken days back and that, indeed, she would have put herself forward as a witness for the trial. But I guess that's my brain doing that 'always question everything!' thing it tends to do. I should merely just 'accept' everything I'm told and simply get on with my life...

I will also believe he may have abused a 7 year old, in full view of a queue of people, twice over, in a community centre in Portsmouth IF someone can find me a link to him EVER having BEEN there in the first place...

>>>"....Another woman claimed Mr Harris touched her intimately when she was seven or eight after she queued to get his autograph at a community centre near Portsmouth in 1969.

No confirmation could be found that Mr Harris had been there, despite searches of local newspaper archives, council records and letter drops appealing for witnesses.

This included looking at copies of the Portsmouth News between January 1967 and May 1974...."<<<

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 04:41 AM

didn't the defence lawyer argue all these points Lizzie?

I do admire your spirited defence of Rolf. I don't know whether he did owt or nowt.

do you have NO doubts yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 04:40 AM

Could I just point out that it's extremely common, if not routine practice, to put newly-arrived prisoners on the Induction Wing on Suicide Watch?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 04:23 AM

All this prompts me to ask some questions:-

Did the FBI find Harris's credit card had indeed been used to pay for child porn?

Did he only view said porn, or also store it (ie 'made an image of it')?

Is it illegal to view only, without storing on the hard drive?

If yes to any or all of the above, why was he not charged and prosecuted about this in addition to the other charges?

I have to say that IMO 'merely' viewing images of child abuse is evil and disgusting in the extreme. What sort of man would even wish to do so? (Presumably a paedophile, although some men have said they were merely 'curious', or it appeared on their screens unbidden.) Harris has now spent two days in prison, but his victims have spent an entire life trying to deal with the trauma of his actions. I trust the due process of British justice, and while the whole situation is sad and shocking, I have no sympathy for the man himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 03:45 AM

Q. Nobody said anything was inadmissible. It was decided not to go forward with them. If he had been found not guilty then the further charges would have been considered, as was the case with Dave Lee Travis. He has a booking with the courts shortly. I have issues with this approach in general and if for no other reason than blocking up the courts, CPS should be given everything the police have on a person and decide whether to prosecute once, unless further evidence is forthcoming.

Being in possession of images of under age children in sexual activity or nudity posed for sexual attraction is in itself an offence. You can argue that you tried to download only adults and this came as well but it is up to you as the person in possession of illegal content to explain your lack of intent.

I really can't understand your question. You keep quoting foreign law and precedents but they have no bearing whatsoever. Incidentally, many prosecutions here were on the basis of FBI handing over credit card transactions of UK citizens paying for child porn where FBI had raided the source.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 10:31 PM

It seems to me, Lizzie Cornish, that the ugly details you have listed as having happened to this man since childhood might easily indicate a badly damaged man.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Andrez
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 08:30 PM

There are two standards of evidence in court cases concerning child abuse. In the criminal court, the standard is beyond reasonable doubt. In the civil court, the standard is on the balance of probability. I had 14 years statutory child protection experience and have been party to many cases going to civil court and have seen first hand how supposedly trustworthy adults try and rationalise or deny their actions have caused physical, emotional, psychological or sexual harm. Usually this has been they have been more focused on their own selfish needs, urges and/or fantasies than in providing a safe, healthy and caring environment for children. There is no, repeat no, excuse for not doing so! That applies to adults who have no familial connection with the child victim/s.

Reading the information available from various sources it is quite clear to me that on the balance of probabilities, children have been harmed as a result of contact with RH and that the verdict is entirely reasonable. That said I don't know under which jurisdiction the trial was held. If it was the criminal court and RH was convicted then the burden of proof needed to be even higher for the jury to decide on their verdict. I'm hoping that cases like this will encourage past, present and future victims of abuse to find the inner strength to find someone or some service to go to and get help to make a report as soon as humanly possible.

I also hope that adults who have suspicions or become aware of the possibility of harm to children don't just sit on their fat arses but get up and do something about it on behalf of the child or children at risk. In the end its up to the courts to decide on the facts in relation to each and every allegation. Its up to the community then to make sure children are supported through and after these processes to help them get past being victims for the rest of their lives and to get on with the business of growing up and taking a constructive role in their community or the world at large.

It takes a community to protect a child!

Cheers,

Andrez

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 06:55 PM

Fortunately we can rely on the judicial system rather than the rule of people who think they know better. If and when the appeal is heard and upheld we can celebrate Rolf's release. Until then, a covicted pedophile is where he should be.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 06:27 PM

Remember THIS?

Orkney Child Sex Abuse Scandal - ALL FALSE!

You see, this is what I feel I'm living inside......they came and took the children from their beds in that instance...such was the total hysteria caused by sick people....


Now, read this...

NO evidence....


See what it says about the community centre, that they cannot trace him ever having been there?

The 'It's a Knockout' thing was actually called 'Star Games' and the girl was about 5 YEARS out..yet STILL *her* allegation too was allowed to be used against Rolf. And please remember, he'd had NOT lied to mislead the court, but had merely forgotten ever filming this programme and had never realized it was in Cambridge...just as Sue Cook said too, who also took part in it, being driven there, to the outskirts of the city, unaware it was in Cambridge....So, WRONG year, WRONG name, she couldn't even remember how old SHE was, but she could remember that having her bum groped had ruined her entire life!

Little Miss Cambridge is the one who also gave an interview yesterday on Breakfast TV, voice dubbed and back to the camera, (was she paid? who knows?) and later in the day said she just wanted Rolf to say sorry, not to go to prison....

Well, NOW, she has the next 6 years, probably longer if the Attorney General takes notice of The Baying Mob Of Hysterical Bastards around the world, to feel guilt, guilt, guilt.......

Rolf Harris has always been loved by all of us. WHERE HAVE YOU GONE, PEOPLE? You don't just desert someone on the basis of NO fecking evidence and a woman who is determined to 'get her own back' on a man she's already told the world has a 'very, very small penis'....WHAT a thing to say to the world! But THAT is what this is all about, the revenge of a woman he ended a 10 year affair with.....

You tell ME who is the 'victim' here, please...and again, find that community centre and then, I'll shut up...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 06:02 PM

The reason the images were not allowed in court, much to the chagrin of The She-Devil, was because they came from **adult** sites. The 'children' headlines are to drag everyone in and get them frothing at the mouth....

The She-Devil, otherwise known as The Prosecution Lawyer, went on to tell people that in *her* opinion the images seemed to be of people younger than 18.

This does NOT mean they were so.   Again, she is using the oldest lawyer's trick in the business...and yet again, it's worked....

IF he had illegal images on his computer, the police would have arrested him in 2012 and prosecuted him ASAP. They didn't. NOW they stand there wittering on about how they are NOT going to prosecute after all, when in reality, it is because they CANNOT prosecute because they do not have any evidence of images of children which they can take him to court for.

There is NO proof that Rolf had sex with ANY 13 year old, freda...It is merely, and will always be, her word....Rolf did not pull this woman to pieces though, other than to say she had asked him for £25,000, threatening to go to the papers with her brother, if he did not pay.   SHE, however, decided to tell the court, nay, the world, that he has a 'very, very small penis'....and THAT remark alone speaks VOLUMES to me....VOLUMES.

Anyone found any links to the Portsmouth Community Centre yet then? You know, the one where Rolf supposedly abused a 7 year old, twice over, by running his hands up her legs, twice over, the second time far more forcefully, whilst the little girl was in the front of the queue with loadsa people right behind her?

He denied ever having been there and neither the police nor the prosecution have found any evidence either....

I've found a local Portsmouth Newspaper though, and on Monday, I'll phone them up and ask them to get on the case, because this woman's evidence should NEVER have been allowed until proof that he'd EVER been there had been fully established....


And yes, freda, I've heard they're all jumping out of the woodwork ih Australia too now. Again though, NO evidence, as yet, not even from the woman who said it happened on camera and her friend who SAW it happen on camera. Seems that between the two of them, neither thought to SAVE the film, nor take it to the police....

Curiouser and Curiouser, eh?

Meanwhile, Rolf's on Suicide Watch and the whole world, who, up until just a few days back LOVED him, have now been brainwashed into hating him by the most vitriolic onslaught by the media I've EVER seen at anytime in my life!

Still, Andy Coulson's only got 18 months for phone hacking, but whilst The World is being urged to contact The Attorney General about Rolf, not a blooody word is being said about the same suggestion for Coulson....

Still, at least Freddie Starr has called now for a judicial review into Operation FuckUpPeoplesLives.....

Oh, and did anyone know that Rolf was abused as a child? By his mother? When he was 11? Who insisted she takes baths with him? So he could study the female body?

No?

Well, you do now....

Oh..and did anyone know he suffers from deep depression? Has self-loathing? No confidence? Puts his HappyClappyRolf persona on to hide behind? That fear nags at him day and night?

No?

Well, you do now?


Does anyone know about Aspergers?
Or Narcissism?
Or broken children who shut down their hearts so early?
Anyone know that Narcissists are often trapped in the age the abuse happened?

Anyone know that Rolf often says he's a just a 10 year old kid?

Anyone know that he's been trying to get attention all his life, praise, admiration?

Anyone know this is what folks with Aspergers often do too, as well as folks with Narcissism?

Anyone know that folks with Aspergers, ubable to get that sometimes their seemingly selfish actions hurt others, go to pieces when they find out they HAVE hurt others, never meaning to?

Anyone know that Rolph was beside himself when he found Alwen's diary one day, (she'd thrown it out) and inside she'd written about how lonely she was..and he never knew, but went to pieces when he realized?

Anyone put two and two together yet and realized that the letter he wrote to his friend, the father of the woman he had a 10 year affair with, was actually FILLED with remorse over her being upset after he'd ended the affair, when she'd told him that she'd never loved him, had hated him, etc...?

Anyone come to understand that he was curled up with grief over the fact he felt he'd hurt her?

Anyone yet thought that the man now on Suicide Watchm, hated by the world, due to the Pirhana Press, is fearful and desperate inside, probaby crying his heart out, lost, bewildered, scared shitless and very possibly soon to die in prison?

But, fuck it, don't let me stop The Party eh?   

I've sent him a card, told him I believe in him and will always do so...and I don't give a fuck what any of you think, because I have the biggest hole in my heart right now for Rolf Harris, who I actually think is one of the kindest folks on the planet...who has been plunged into Absolute Hell by NO evidence at all...

So, if you could let me have that community centre name, I'd sure appreciate it!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 05:18 PM

having had the misfortune of seeing some of the pop videos watched by kids that have been in our house, it seems to me that the current culture encourages girls to think that they are there for the pleasure of the male [or maybe sometimes another girl] and to act and dress as if they are available.
this, of course does not excuse the abuser, but it might make it easier for him/her to achieve their wicked way.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 05:08 PM

The best way to fight paedophilia is to inform & empower children. Let's not confuse innocence with ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 04:02 PM

The exploitative "culture" could be fought if we had the will, but our sense of morality has been weakened and diluted by the ideology of "self".

Quite relevant to this thread, I suppose. The ideology of self thinking it is better than the rule of law?

Is that what you meant?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 02:33 PM

The pictures were not admitted because it could not be proved that the girls in the images were underage.

The argument I tried to bring up about cache images has no bearing here, but I would still like to know what the legal opinion is.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 02:33 PM

Q. The Crown Prosecution Service decided it was not in the public interest to prosecute. It was made clear that this was the reason rather than lack of evidence. To procure or obtain such images is an offence.

Whilst on the celebrity topic, see Gary Glitter for details.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 02:16 PM

One nun dead!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Claire M
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 02:14 PM

Hiya! I have fond memories of RH's Pavlova song – anyone know the 1 I mean ?? Something had gone wrong w/ the tv, meaning he'd gone green. I was only small & remember nearly wetting myself – mum'd break into said song when she'd finished making said dessert. It sounded a bit like this

this

(well, the start of the song anyway) @ 31 y/o, said RH song still cracks me up, & probably always will. Is that wrong ??

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 02:13 PM

Were the images on the Rolf Harris computer downloaded and saved, or merely in the cache?
The Protection of Children Act, "in the context of digital media, saving an indecent image to a computer's hard drive is considered making the image..."
Words from Wikipedia article on Child pornography laws in the UK. I have not seen a copy of the Act or the various Court rulings pertinent to it.

Why were the computer images ruled out in the Rolf Harris case; was it because they were in the cache and not downloaded to the hard drive? What was the reason given for the exclusion?

Musket, Can you find the relevant ruling and the reasons given?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 01:40 PM

This is very heartening Musket. But of course there will still be children who are afraid to say anything about abuse, for example if it's conducted by a member of the family. At least we're all much more aware nowadays, as you say. When my husband first encountered Father Christmas's grottoes, he was horrified. He couldn't imagine any mother taking her child into a dark 'cave' to talk to a strange, bearded man. When I told him that in the past, the child was encouraged to sit on the chap's knee, he nearly fell over. Nowadays I always tease him if we pass a 'grotto in the garden centre, and ask the 'elf' to take him in to sit in Pere Noel's lap. And he still, after all these years, looks slightly panic-stricken!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 12:30 PM

Lizzie, false convictions are alarming: Guildford Four, Birmingham Six, Sally Clark and a lot more, some of which we know, some we don't. That says nothing about Timothy Evans and others who have met the same fate.
Not only alarming but hardly surprising when you think the accused can often only afford a junior back street barrister whilst the state (aka HM) has limitless resources so can provide a whole team of QC's. Our resources, that is. The jury may well have limited judgement and can be swayed by the theatrical performances of a skilled barrister. And then there's the 'expert witnesses': a lay jury was certainly swayed by the impressive Sir Professor Doctor Roy Meadows. And yet if your on the winning side, mass murderers walk free.
The adversarial method is certainly deeply flawed. And we laugh at trial by battle or ordeal!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 10:10 AM

Not much has altered over the years for many children. They live in loving households, do well at school and get on.

The only way in which we are letting our children down is in their health. Instead of being kicked out to play, children are more prone to live sedentary lifestyles in front of screens. Virtual friends have replaced blood and skin type. Childhood obesity is a huge concern.

For the past five hundred years, life expectancy in The UK has slowly increased and rather dramatically in more recent generations. However, with junk food and parents not taught the skills of cooking fresh food, their health is at risk, storing problems for later. Today's children are at risk, according to public health bodies of having a lower life expectancy than their parents.

That is a very sobering thought.

Regarding physical abuse, that has lowered dramatically. Today's children have far more people looking out for them. Whether through school, contact with the health service or others, signs of abuse are picked up more frequently and social services don't have a problem with unmet need, they struggle to keep up with demand, given their dwindling resources. That said, the at risk registers nationally are lower as a percentage of all children versus only ten years ago.

Reading newspapers may be entertaining but the office for national statistics publish far more interesting and factual information.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 09:22 AM

the ideology of self was encouraged by mrs thatcher, she surely must have had an idea about an ex minister who served in her government, and was in a position to cover facts up.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 09:18 AM

Rolf - he damn well didgeridid when all those young innocents cried didgeridon't.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 09:01 AM

I do wish it were so, but unfortunately there will always be paedophiles, and children being abused. Remember, these men 'groom' children and know exactly how to get their trust. They're also often known to the victim and their family. Add in the number of early teenage girls roaming about in the late evening, possibly having alcohol, and you sadly have a recipe for disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 06:46 AM

Grubby stuff as ever, Ake. Surely sassy empowered happy & well informed kids entirely in touch with themselves, their culture, their folklore are anathema to paedophiles? I'd say it's better now than its ever been - certainly in my lifetime, and before.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 04:42 AM

Eliza...What we see is a sad reflection of what society has become.
It all goes back to the abdication of parental responsibility, family values etc.

The exploitative "culture" could be fought if we had the will, but our sense of morality has been weakened and diluted by the ideology of "self".

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 04:05 AM

Q. We are discussing Rolf Harris, who is in The UK. Foreign law is irrelevant. Downloading and holding illegal images of child porn gets you a custodial sentence in most cases. it is against the law. If some countries haven't caught up with laws to protect children yet, I assume civilisation will catch up eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 04:01 AM

I see what you mean akenaton. While I always see children as innocent, it's true that nowadays, as you say, money-making ventures profit from sexualising them. I can't understand parents who buy sexy bikinis and little bras for their young girls. I realise that all little girls like to pretend to be a grown-up lady (we used to totter around in our mum's high heels) but to let them use make-up, lipstick, nail varnish, shoes with raised heels, sexy clothes etc and to allow them to access porn sites in the evenings in their rooms is curtailing their childhood and inviting trouble. It's all very unwholesome. I especially deplore children's clothes with suggestive words printed on them. It's almost a direct invitation to paedophiles. But none of this reflects on the children themselves of course. They are and remain innocent and vulnerable. I know and understand children very well, having sat with thirty at a time in a classroom for a lifetime of teaching. Even at twelve, they are still vulnerable and in spite of acting 'grown up' they emphatically are not. Anyone who abuses these innocent youngsters deserves all the courts can throw at them.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 03:48 AM

All children should be innocent, but they are robbed of their innocence by the money grubbing media.....especially the music media.

Also magazines produced for children, "adult" clothes produced for children, disgusting TV programmes, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 03:34 AM

I would have thought that actively seeking sites online which portray child abuse indicates ones interest in the subject. By viewing them one is encouraging the image-makers to produce the videos/photos. This is participating in that abuse at second-hand. He apparently viewed these things many many times, using a large number of sites with titles suggesting sexual activity with young people or children. He had written in a notebook the system, ineffectual as it happened, for deleting them from his computer, so he obviously was well aware they were illegal and unacceptable.
All children are indeed innocent. Any deviation (I use that word advisedly) from this stance is paramount to the self-justifying paedophiles who declare 'the children love it' and 'he/she wanted me to do it'.
Some of the things he did were absolutely disgusting and horrifying. Not just 'touching' or 'groping', words which sound almost light-hearted. If one's own child had been attacked in this way, I am sure one would want to commit murder.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 02:40 AM

Rolf Harris is a convicted criminal under UK law. Foreign laws are nothing to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 02:32 AM

Right, Musket, The Child Protection Act should prevail, but see "Viewing Child pornography on line not a crime: New York court ruling." yahoo.com, blog by Eric Pfeiffer, 2012, also article in the National Post, May 9, 2012.

Material automatically entered in a computer's memory cache, merely viewed, is not the same as actively downloading the images.

I find the situation confusing. I do not know UK or Australian rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 02:05 AM

Just a point of order for Q 's benefit.

Holding such images on your computer is an offence and depending on the category of image can get you far longer in prison than he is serving. There are many people convicted of such crime, including a man I used to work with who got five years, reduced by half on appeal.

Regarding a rather distasteful comment on this thread by the usual suspect. All children are innocent. Full stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 11:08 PM

Back to the theme of Rolf Harris, having intercourse with a thirteen year old is not on, it's right that he's been convicted. An Australian journalist who reported on the case commented that many of the assaults Harris was accused of were very offensive and much more than "groping" but details were not always given to the jury and therefore to the public for legal reasons. Just as all the Australian witnesses' Australian cases couldn't be investigated because the victims' experiences were outside British jurisdiction. The court found that he is much more than a dirty old man, he is a sexual criminal.

In Australia we're currently having a Royal Commission into the sexual abuse of children and people by institutions. This covers religious, sporting and charity organisations, institutions,churches, schools,holiday camps etc. Its acknowledged that the average time it takes for a survivor to report abuse is 22 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Jeri
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:55 PM

I think you might have missed something, Freda.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:49 PM

I've appreciated Dave's posts on this thread, Jeri. Closing down a previous thread because of personal comments, and then making one yourself is a bit rich.

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 06:15 PM

Where or when did I ever try to control the way you write, dear Lizzie? I know perfectly well one might as well try to stop a Bandersnatch: and I quite like it anyway; it passes many an idle hour!

And I can't help it, because I happen to be a member of the Groucho Club...

So lotzaluv 2U any·old·how!...


X❤♥~Michael~♥❤X

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,SB
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 05:50 PM

The post below from SC seems to have been ignored. Saville & Harris are / were minnows. Google search "kitty elmbridge barnes" for a less than squeaky clean pop star. And for more shens from the Westminster fraternity also Google search "pimlico child abuse". And don't forget the re-invention of an ex-MP as an eccentric rail rider.

http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/savile-elite-child-abuse.html

===

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.

===

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 05:48 PM

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." - Thomas Jefferson

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 05:29 PM

Worth reading the whole article:

"........Prior to 2004, the Home Office stated in its own bulletin that it was aware of 3000 wrongfully convicted people being put in prison every year, while allowing the guilty to walk free (Naylor L.A 2004). No, that is not a typo, it is 3000 real people, most with families, partners, and children. Tens of thousands of people affected by this injustice, and yet the government allows it to continue to make their conviction statistics look good.

Thousands of families are being ripped apart by this growing culture of compensation for false allegations, although in some cases the accuser is not always to blame for this. Your accuser could be the victim of malpractice by a psychotherapist, who can call themselves 'qualified' after only a 20 week correspondence course, and work in this field of therapy which has no regulations. In comparison a psychology degree will take years to acquire........"



The Horror of False Allegations


And, having just seen the newspaper reports on the Attorney General situation, it's as if the media are now rousing people to write in to ask for a longer sentence, constantly saying how these poor women are going to suffer for their entire lives...

Witch Hunt...total Witch Hunt...

Rolf has become Savile in their minds, and all the hatred and vitriol they've wanted to use against Savile is being poured down upon Rolf. They've turned him into a monster and to be honest, I find it horrific. He'll never be safe..ever.   It's why this has so deeply, deeply upset me, seeing my country come to this. I'd leave Britain tomorrow, if I could, I think we've become a foul country, I really do. :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 04:50 PM

:0) That made me chuckle, Joe.... xx

MtheGM, stop being such an old grouch, it's nearly all the post, especially the part about Cambridge, as you'd spoken about that....And could you please remember that I do not patronize, or try to control, the way you write. I write my way, you write yours. If you don't like the way I write, just scroll on by. It really is that easy.

Well, the Attorney General, no matter if it's about too long, or too short a sentence, now has The Facts before him, especially the bit about the Untraceable Community Centre. If nothing else, it might make a few folks think differently in the office.

The images were taken from an adult site, apparently, aged 18 and over being the age of the people featured on there. Sacha Wass, The Prosecution Bitch From Hell, is already 'out there' stating that to her, the images looked of far younger people. CAN she say that, legally? Again, the old lawyer's trick of stating something you want to plant in the minds of others, even if it's not true....

Sorry, but the police surely WOULD have prosecuted him for any images they were truly concerned about.

Fecking Witch Hunt, with some very sinister characters in....


And no, to the 'guest' above who was trying to infer I don't like women, that is incorrect. I don't like women who LIE, or who tell the world that someone has 'a very very small penis', as the woman who claims he abused her from the age of 13 did, she being Bindi's EX-friend.

I also don't like women who think that ALL women should be believed and ALL men should be seen as instantly guilty, no matter what.

This is because I am the MOTHER of a young man, who could find himself in just such a situation one day, should some jumped up little feminista decide he's upset her, or go beserk in a fit of jealous rage....

I loathe, LOATHE, what the Man-Hating Feminists have done to the relationship between men and women these days, those who see ALL men as rapists, who've convinced women to behave in the most appalling 'in yer face' way, that women have the right to behave in whatever way they so choose, whilst men have NO rights at all....They're like the worst kind of misogynists....Misandrists all...


I'm all for Equality, don't get me wrong, but you do not put right the shocking wrongs of the past which happened to many women, by making all men suffer because of it....

Germaine Greer and her ilk have a LOT to answer for...yet they sit there now whimpering "It was never meant to be like this!"....Well, it IS, and maybe, just maybe, they need to stand up and take some of the blame....

I KNOW some women lie, because my MOTHER was one such woman, who told terrible lies about my Dad, who was one of the gentlest men you could ever imagine, as is my son, his grandson, whom he sadly never got to meet, but that same gentleness and kindness runs through my son...Some women DO lie, so do some men and we need to get our heads round that fact again, because you know, not ALL women should be believed at all, there are actually some bloody nasty women out there, narcissists, misandrists, ones who have been abused, yet who blame others for that abuse, mentally deranged ones too...(the same goes for some men)...some HUMANS are deeply fecked up..and this includes women as much as men.

So THAT is where I'm coming from.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 04:30 PM

Are there any "innocent" children left?

Yes. I have 2 grandsons at 5 and 3. They are innocent.

Does that answer your question?

What has it got to do with Rolf Harris anyway?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 04:21 PM

Gee, I'm sure glad Max moved me to the Music Editor position...

I closed many similar threads, back when it was my job to do such things. When it becomes yet another All About Lizzie thread, whatcha gonna do?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 03:46 PM

The Good Soldier says.... "for a child to have innocence and the rest of their life spoiled, how can this be compensated for?"

Are there any "innocent" children left? The Media and the huge sector of society in thrall to the Media, have been abusing and exploiting and seducing children for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 03:15 PM

Dear Lizzie: You address me at one point in your long post above, 1221 pm; but it is not clear which part of it is addressed to me, or where the part that is stops. As I can find nothing following my forum name that I can relate to, or identify as a response to, anything I had posted I am left somewhat puzzled as to why I appear in your post-in-reply at all.

Regards

~M~