Roy Harper charged 2013, cleared 2015

Subject: Roy Harper charged
From: Uncle Tone
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 05:23 AM

"Folk singer Roy Harper has been charged with sexually abusing a girl from the age of 12."

BBC News link

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Acorn4
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 05:37 AM

Bit of a shock to put it mildly.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,iou
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 07:33 AM

not a shock to everyone

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 08:59 AM

All such cases shock. But I am also shocked by GUEST,iou's implication that there were those who were aware or suspected, yet did nothing. What authority were they afraid of, FFS?

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 09:16 AM

He isn't a folk singer.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 09:48 AM

I fully agree with you George, but there again people who knew about him protected Jimmy Savile.

Dave H

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 10:13 AM

He isn't a folk singer.

A typical Mudcat reaction!

He's in a great tradition of singer-writers to whom the word Folk has been traditionally applied for several generations now, so I guess that makes him as much a Folk Singer as anyone else.

That one of his songs (from his 1974 album Valentine) just happens to consist entirely of unambiguous first-hand reportage concerning a sexual encounter with a thirteen-year-girl, is, in any instance (but especially this one), unfortunate to say the least.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 10:55 AM

Get a life, Blandiver. Blather all you wish, but it still doesn't make him a folk singer. Songwriter, rock and roller, etc., but not a folk singer. Tell your damned newspapers to get their headlines right.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 11:12 AM

"Between your thirteen year old thighs" from memory of reading the back of said LP Valentine, which was owned by an old friend who actually cautioned me about the paedophilia contained in the lyrics as I was browsing his collection. I don't know anything about Harper, but even to me, having never listened to the music, it's not a "shock". More a shock that he's finally been busted really.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 11:13 AM

Okay, Guest. I'll get my people onto it right away...

Actually I hope as much as anyone here that all these allegations of Roy Harper being a Folk Singer prove to be unfounded - but if they do, you can bet your bottom dollar the retraction won't comply with Hacked Off's demands on such matters. Shame.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jim McLean
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 12:53 PM

Folk singer or not, that is not the question, nor the answer. The lyrics to Forbidden Fruit are entirely sick, an expression of paediophelia which, if it reflects his view and actions should ensure he is locked up unquestionably and as quickly as possibly. Listening to what this man thinks about how he would treat a thirteen year just makes me so angry. I'm just surprised he has got away with such public statements for so long.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Silas
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 02:10 PM

I don't and have never thought of this person as a 'Folk' singer - what he was doing on the Folk awards is still a mystery to me, but not a surprise.

Never liked the guy though.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 02:30 PM

I'd rather he'd got in court over his song about Islam, but hey we can't be choosy.

Any chance of somebody finding a nice fat tax fraud?

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 03:16 PM

Tax fraud in the folk world? Chance would be a fine thing!

Oh, I'm forgetting, he's not a Folk Singer...

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 03:26 PM

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

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Elmore
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 03:34 PM

Not a folk singer to me, but I,m not the folk police. Never heard of him. Played a couple of his videos on You Tube. Sounded pretty good. Doesn't mean he's not a perv.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 03:35 PM

He should have been put on a charge for that 20 minute introduction to his song at the Folk Awards.

Dave H

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 03:47 PM

innocent until proved guilty.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Nick
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 04:06 PM

Has anyone done Nabokov for writing Lolita yet?

My view as on facebook is that - aside from how hard it is to sing 'I Hate the White Man' in Yorkshire without people misinterpreting it (it must be the flowery 60's writing) -

I thought that people were supposed to be presumed innocent until pronounced guilty - Sally Bercow's libel damages point to that. Craig Douglas was a rapist for a while until he wasn't.

Personally, I have never understood the attraction of pre-pubescent girls or the need to want to start a relationship with one. So if he is guilty - and until then not - he deserves to pay for what he has done.

How is it that people have such certainty without any facts?

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,kenny
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 04:23 PM

Agree with the 2 posts above.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 05:14 PM

1. Craig Douglas?

2. 13 years old pre-pubescent? You need to get out more.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: selby
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 05:33 PM

I though that the tenant of the law in the UK was innocent until proved guilty.Although I do not rate the bloke, that rule should apply, I am not comfortable with trial by media in all its forms, for anyone, due process should punish or not as the case may be.
Keith

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 05:39 PM

The charge is of molesting a girl from twelve years old.

Forbidden Fruit (written when Harper was 32) is about enticing a thirteen year old "little girl" away from her "mummy" to "play secret games" with him. It's not proof, but the language is explicitly paedophilic.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 05:48 PM

This is an interesting case for the media's perception of "what is folk". I expected it might be like the way athletes in British media tend to be Scottish when they lose and British when they win, but it's a bit more random than that. Headline labels applied in news stories about this event:

Independent: "influential rock singer"
Huffington Post: folk singer"
ABC News: "folk singer"
Mirror: "folk star"
Sky: no label but "said to have influenced rock band Led Zeppelin"
Spin (who they?): "folk legend"
BBC: "folk singer"
Mail Online: "Singer-songwriter, 72, who performed with Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin" but in the text "Celebrated folk musician"
NME: "folk singer"
Rolling Stone: "English folk singer who sang with Pink Floyd and influenced Led Zeppelin"
Standard: "folk singer"
Pitchfork (who?): "influential folk artist"
CTV News (Canada): "British folk singer"
news.com.au: "UK singer"
The Australian: "UK singer"

Perhaps there's an element of "never mind the genre, he's a Pom so what do you expect" in the last two.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 06:10 PM

I never much liked Harper (not folk, you see) but the 13 years reference is not as cited and it's all rather part of the fantasy of the era - Donovan's "Mellow Yellow" and "Photeen" and "Honeybunch" from the Oz mag. Etc.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 07:02 PM

Whether thirteen-year-olds are pre-pubescent or not is a bit of a side issue - they're too damn young for grown men to be drooling over. Speaking as the father of a thirteen-year-old girl, I think "Forbidden Fruit" was beyond the pale - and Harper didn't exactly help matters by saying that these were in fact his fantasies. (Lewis Carroll is a complete red herring - there's no evidence he had sexual fantasies about the girls he befriended, some of whom were still corresponding with him after they'd grown up.)

Having said that, fantasy is fantasy, and we don't yet know what, if anything, he's actually done.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Acorn4
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 03:50 AM

Apparently Roy Harper has denied all the charges.

Just a case of wait and see.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Will Fly
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 04:12 AM

I've never cared for Roy Harper or his music - and recall, in the days when several of us drank in the "North Star" in Finchley, that he was known rather disparagingly as "the Mini Pop Star".

However - once again no-one knows the facts, so comment on this case is pointless. As for the lyrics of songs being a pointer to the character of the songwriter, has no-one heard of a writer inhabiting a character he or she has created - a character which bears no relation to the writer? There are many songwriters who employ this device - Randy Newman being archetype. Newman isn't a redneck, isn't a dwarf hater, etc. - just uses and inhabits these characters temporarily to make a point.

Trial by online forum is a pretty pointless exercise either way.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Uncle Tone
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 05:08 AM

Is Ian Anderson Aqualung? Did he invent Cross-eyed Mary?

Was Maurice Chevalier a paedo?

You can't judge a person by their song lyrics any more than you can judge a fiction writer or poet by their observations or inventions.

One has to wonder, if these allegations have any truth in them at all, why the victim(s) have waited this long to make them. Jumping on the bandwagon? Seeking financial compensation in an out-of-court settlement?

Is anyone in the public eye safe? I bet there are a rake of ex-pop group members hoping that their under-age groupies don't come creeping out of the woodwork.

Operation Yewtree and its spawnings reminds me of McCarthyism.

Innocent until proven guilty. Agreed absolutely.

Tone

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 05:13 AM

Agreed. Innocent until proved guilty, what do we know? And apropos song lyrics, I often sing Stackolee but have never, as far as I can recall, shot anybody on a dance floor. Or felt any particular desire to do so.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Uncle Tone
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 05:23 AM

.... not even Bruce Forsyth?

Tone

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 05:49 AM

Lewis Carroll is a complete red herring - there's no evidence he had sexual fantasies about the girls he befriended

And eroticised in naked photographs....

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 06:34 AM

Photographs yes, eroticised no, fantasised (in Harper's sense) definitely not. God knows what was going on in the depths of the Carrollian psyche, but whatever it was stayed well down in the depths.

As for reading anything into the lyrics, if somebody wrote a really good murder ballad I'd think that person was in touch with their own violent impulses. And if somebody writes about persuading a thirteen-year-old girl to give him a hand-job (and then acknowledges that it's a fantasy of his), I never ever want that person anywhere near my daughter.

He may be entirely, totally, whiter than the driven snow innocent of acting on these fantasies. I think he's guilty of being a creep, though.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Mr Red
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 06:48 AM

Most pundits who study the Rev Charles Lutwidge Dodgson agree there were repressed feelings. Mostly from interpreting his literature.
FWIW I would not include Roy Harper in the "Folk" camp - he is a singer songwriter and Folkies can include such - happily. But that don't make him Folk. We decide that and we can't agree --- I submit.
Case "not proven" unlike the impending court case will be.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 07:32 AM

Humphrey Carpenter's book "Secret Gardens" has quite a bit about Carroll's psyche. He doesn't come across as a paedophile pornographer.

I hadn't come across "Forbidden Fruit" before. Even more inexplicable than Harper writing it: how come he found an audience for it? What kind of listener would pay money to hear it?

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Rev Bayes
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 09:38 AM

canalwheeler, why a victim chooses to report or not report something is entirely up to them and there are good reasons they may choose not to report or may delay reporting for long periods. Such delays have no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of their allegations.

Innocent until proven guilty, yes, but anyone making an allegation also has the right to be treated with respect.

And, people, please bear in mind that since he has been charged there are rules on what can and cannot be said.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 11:52 AM

Someone has been charged. He denies it. So "wait and see" seems to be the order of the day.

He is an excellent singer/ songwriter and I have a number of his songs in my repertoire.

In 35 years of playing them in folk clubs and festivals, nobody has tried telling me they weren't folk songs.

Possibly because they are. ...

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 12:30 PM

He is a folk singer not like hitler's horse

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 02:11 PM

Regarding the "folksinger/not folksinger" question.
Some 40 years ago I - and a few friends - went to see Roy at the Liverpool Phil, and we had a chat with him before the concert.
One of our group happened to mention that the Taverners Club in Blackpool had decided not to book him anymore because they considered that he was no longer a folksinger.
Roy was much amused by this, and mentioned it during the concert.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 02:51 PM

Lewis Carroll is an interesting case: it is usually said that he was only at ease with children and found adult relationships difficult. However if you look at some of the photographs that he took they include the famous - like Tennyson - and even royals; this does not seem to fit in with a man who is only at ease with children. It has been said in recent times that his family put out the 'only at ease with children' tale to hide his relationships with adult women; friendship with children was quite acceptable in those times but not with female adults as an bachelor don and ordained deacon. This situation has now reversed and the attempt to whitewash backfired rather. Interesting thought.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 04:02 PM

Guest ~~ You didn't write Stackolee.

Tone ~~ Maurice Chevalier didn't write "Thank Heaven for little girls": just sang it from the script of Gigi.

So not really comparable.

Not offering any comment on the topic of the thread.

Just saying...

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 05:31 PM

In 35 years of playing them in folk clubs and festivals, nobody has tried telling me they weren't folk songs

Has anyone ever told anyone that what they were doing was "not folk"? I asked this once before, on an open thread for anyone to come up with examples of the Folk Police in action; nobody did.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 07:08 PM

Mick Jagger is a folk singer.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Uncle Tone
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 07:36 PM

"Maurice Chevalier didn't write "Thank Heaven for little girls": just sang it from the script of Gigi."

I didn't say he did. I asked a rhetorical question to point out the nonsense of identifying a writer or performer with their work.

Tone

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 10:44 PM

Quite ~~ but it wasn't 'his' work in that instance, was it?; and performers are beside the point, obviously, or any actor playing a murderer on a cop show is going to be in dead trouble! Your point was merely confusing, however 'rhetorical', rather than enlightening.

~M~

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 17 Nov 13 - 02:00 PM

I have no information and no opinion on this particular case, but would just point out one reason why such accusations are sometimes made many years after the alleged event(s): when there are false memories resulting from "therapy" sessions.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: pavane
Date: 17 Nov 13 - 03:35 PM

Someone i know personally has just been acquitted of such charges despite several separate independant victims testifying. We know of many more who didn't become involved, and that he lied consstently in court. The prosecution didn't cross-examine, just took his answers. If we can find the pictures which are alleged to be out there, maybe we can nail him.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Nov 13 - 04:07 PM

Roy Harper, has not been tried yet.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Nov 13 - 07:55 PM

yes indeed Craig Douglas - when my little girl is smiling - evidence enough for me!

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,michaelr
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 02:16 AM

Reminds me of the film where Gerard Depardieu takes his teenage daughter on holiday and she tells everyone he's her lover... then he plays the lounge piano and sings "Thank heaven for little girls".

Perfectly innocent, but everyone walks out on him.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 06:32 AM

Photographs yes, eroticised no, fantasised (in Harper's sense) definitely not. God knows what was going on in the depths of the Carrollian psyche, but whatever it was stayed well down in the depths.

Hmmmmm. The jury's still out on this one, but the photographs tell it differently; they are eroticised in every sense of the erotic. Pornographic? Maybe not. Fantasised? Most certainly. The classic picture of Alice-as-Beggar-Maid dressed in off-the-shoulder rags is evidence enough.

*

I've never seen Thank Heaven for Little Girls as all that dodgy myself; contrary to paedophiliac fantasy, it celebrates the fact that sexuality only comes through maturity and that the appeal of little girls can only be truly appreciated by little boys.

Far more repugnant is Gilbert O'Sullivan's vomit-inducing Clair (aaah!) - not quite Forbidden Fruit but, Dead God, not far off. Contrast & compare with Matt Berry's Song for Rosie from his 2009 neo-folk/prog masterpiece 'Witchazel' (...an album about the horrors of the countryside...) which is the only sort of thing adults should be singing about kids - i.e. brimful with parental love & responsibility to the sanctity of innocence.

*

No one here is finding anyone guilty of anything other than writing a piece of paedoerotic reportage of having sex with a 13-year-old-girl and justifying it in interview (Melody Maker, 1974) as being '...an absolute admission...'.

*

As for him being a folk singer, on weighing up the above evidence and his general place in the singer-songwriter canon, as well as the nature of the music that passes for Folk here on Mudcat & elsewhere, then yes, absolutely, Roy Harper is indeed a Folk Singer.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 06:54 AM

Dead God

Thank heaven for little accidental typos!

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Brimbacombe
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 07:27 AM

As others have said, Harper is innocent until proven guilty, and the woman involved deserves to be treated with respect.

For those questioning why she 'left it so long' to come forward, I'd suggest reading the (most recent) autobiography of rugby union player Brian Moore in which he talks about his experiences of being sexually abused as a boy by one of his teachers, and why it took him to long to reveal what happened. Each case is, of course, unique and has its own set of complexities, but if a man of Moore's fearsome reputation can still be frightened in adulthood of a this person, then you see what such abuse can do to someone psychologically. None of which makes Harper guilty, of course. I just think there's a mindset in this country that if someone doesn't report a crime immediately, then it didn't happen. The Savile case shows the flaw in this mindset, but it still happens.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 08:01 AM

dare we mention Lolita & Vladimir Nabokov?
That debate ain't dead yet!

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 08:49 AM

dare we mention Lolita & Vladimir Nabokov? That debate ain't dead yet!

Lolita was mentioned somewhere above there and sensibly ignored. But seeing you mentioned it again, here's a few words extracted from something I wrote elsewhere in relation to the present issue...

The kind of complex literary fiction that Nabokov was dealing with in Lolita (the story of two paedophiles destroying each other over their respective psychotic obsessions with an underage nymphet) is of a very different order to the entirely un-contextualised misogynistic first-hand reportage of an erotic relationship with a child in the idiom of MOR folk song that Roy Harper gives us in Forbidden Fruit.

Unlike Harper's song, Lolita is NOT a pamphlet to the cause of paedophilia - it is an account in the name of Art that does more to raise the awareness of such issues than it does to give pleasure to perverts. Its outcomes & tensions are very clear - something which Humbert's harrowing inner dialogue makes abundantly clear throughout, contrasting with Quilty's unrepentant amorality for which he ultimately welcomes Humbert as his executioner. This is not to forgive Humbert - his inner dialogue is unambiguously psychotic - something he is all too aware of. His fate is that of a criminal writing his 'goodnight ballad', perhaps accepting that his real crimes are going unpunished.

Forbidden Fruit is pure pornography - it is born from misogynistic objectification of a young girl by an adult male who sees her purely as a means for a sexual gratification which to him is a short lived pleasure, but to the victim will be a trauma from which she'll never recover (something she has in common with Lolita). That it glorifies that much in the sleeve-note makes both it and its author all the more noxious. In Harper's own words:

'And then there's Forbidden Fruit the thirteen-year-old-girl thing. I'm a Lewis Carroll freak, basically I love to watch things like Alice in Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass. I'm into the beauty of the young female, and the older I get, the more fascinated I become. That's probably true of most men, but I'm totally honest about it. That song's an absolute admission if you like. I mean I'm a great man for women, full stop, but let's not get hung up here. Let's just say that Forbidden Fruit is way way over the top of Mrs Mary Whitehouse.'

(Roy Harper interview in Melody Maker, 1974)

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 04:44 PM

>>I have no information and no opinion on this particular case, but would just point out one reason why such accusations are sometimes made many years after the alleged event(s): when there are false memories resulting from "therapy" sessions.

And here's another reason: because idiots like you walk into a court room with preconceived ideas.

Would you care to provide some sort of intelligent citation for your bullshit assertion?

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 05:49 PM

do a runner roy. no sense in doing an Oscar wilde.

roy harper
you'd better scarper
they're bleeding fascists mate
you're a humdinger
folksinger
so bugger off
don't wait!

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Merlina
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 09:19 PM

When I was thirteen and helped out a local film festival my Dad was organising, I got a mention in a write up by a local journalist as the 'luscious piece in hotpants'. My parents reacted by showing me the article hoping it help me overcome my feelings of self consciousness and feel more confident about the way I looked. And yet in this day and age, and in the current social climate, the parents would more likely sue the newspaper.

Of course it's a good thing that abuse is brought to light and victims are able to speak out and that it's no longer acceptable to reduce women to objects. But I think maybe it's gone too far and turned into a kind of paranoid obsession in present ay society.

Roy is being a lot more explicit in this song than that local reporter - but I do think he has a point when he says it's what most men really feel and he's just being more honest about it. Feeling an attraction to or admiring a young female is still not the same as actually abusing them or having unlawful sex with them, and there is a difference between a young teenager in the process of becoming a woman, and a child. I think, going by what he said in the interview, it may well have been partly him putting the V's up to Mary Whitehouse and her attempts at the time to control and censor any portrayal of sex.

Perhaps his only crime is being frank and honest about his feelings and desires, in a society that is becoming increasingly Orwellian and with 'thought police' and 'double think'.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 07:24 AM

What Roy Harper wrote or sang in a song has no bearing on whether or not he is guilty of child abuse. However revolting or creepy the song's lyrics might be.

Roy Harper's been accused on nine counts of sexually assaulting the same girl, beginning when she was 12. The post above seems to be dangerously close to suggesting that, even if he's guilty of it, there are circumstances in which that could be considered acceptable, or a least retrospectively considered acceptable "back in the 70s".

This is all academic now anyway. Even if Roy Harper is pronounced innocent, his career is over. Can you really see any UK festivals booking him ever again? Can you really see any record labels wanting to put out new material? From that point of view, that odious song suddenly becomes relevant. Nobody's gonna touch him with a bargepole now.

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 08:40 AM

What Roy Harper wrote or sang in a song has no bearing on whether or not he is guilty of child abuse. However revolting or creepy the song's lyrics might be.

I don't think anyone here has said that have they? I hope not. As far as I was concerned his career was over when I heard that song in '74 when I was 13 myself and found it deeply unacceptable even by my somewhat feral sexual standards of the time (I even skipped a track on Wish You Were Here because he sang on it; now I'm happy that I have the 'Experience' edition where I can hear Roger Waters' vocal as is only right and proper - I like my Floyd as a hermetically sealed gang o' 4, Dick Parry notwithstanding...) His sleeve note and justification in the MM interview make it all the more noxious but its bearing on the present sensation is coincidental & unfortunate despite his claims that Forbidden Fruit is '...an absolute admission...'.

Personally, I'd make it a law that the press could only report on such cases after the conviction. If there is no conviction, then there is no story - simples! If he is found innocent you can bet the retraction won't meet with Hacked Off's standards. Even if the press retracted on the front page, it's not going to help restore his reputation - but then again neither's Forbidden Fruit and its related commentaries.

Thing is though, if he was truly guilty of such crimes, would he have made so public a statement about them? I'd like to think not, but then again Jimmy Savile was goosing and groping young girls (incuding a Nolan!) in full view of the nation on TOTP with the alleged approval of everyone in the BBC, so who can say?

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 09:18 AM

I `ad that Matt Milton in my cab this morning. `e`d just been on E-Bay flogging off all `is "blue" books records. Feeling a bit vulnerable ,I `spose.
I said, "Morning Matt. I saw your two-pennyworth on that Mudcat this morning. I reckon you might be a bit mistaken regarding Roy `arper`s career going tits up."
`e said, " Nah, Jim. `e`s blotted

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 09:26 AM

...to be cont.
......`is copy book now and that`s it for `im."
I said, "Don`t you believe it Matt. We live in a society where vile and un-acceptable behaviour is rewarded by the media with a path to paid "celebrity" status".
`e said, "Watcha mean?".
I said, "Russel Brand, Johnathon Woss, Chris Huhne and `is old woman for starters!!"

Whaddam I Like??

Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 07:15 PM

Matt, re your comment "The post above seems to be dangerously close to suggesting that, even if he's guilty of it, there are circumstances in which that could be considered acceptable, or a least retrospectively considered acceptable "back in the 70s".

I am NOT suggesting anything of the kind. I also stated that it's a good thing that victims are able to speak out and abuse is brought to light. I have personally known 2 victims of abuse/incest, one of whom ended up not wanting any kind of sexual contact with men, the other one ending up committing suicide. So I do not condone abuse, or under age sex, at any time or in any era.

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.

And there is a difference between feeling attracted to some-one and acting on it. Even back in the seventies, my parents may have been okay with what the local reporter had written, but there was no way they would have allowed me to be in any situation where an adult male could have actually had any sexual contact with me. My Dad in particular was very protective of me in that respect.

Which in turn raises a question in Roy Harper's case, regarding the alleged victim. Where were the girls' parents at the time this abuse was supposed to have taken place? What were they thinking, allowing a twelve year old to spend time alone with an adult male? This is assuming the alleged abuse took place on the farm he had at the time, and not at gigs - where I think it's highly unlikely a 12 year old would have been able to attend, unaccompanied.

As for the song, I agree the lyrics can be interpreted as a graphic description of sexual relations between an adult male and a thirteen year old. But I dont think that proves that the Roy Harper, as the writer, was literally having those thoughts about a real thirteen year old, let alone acting on them.

A case in point is Kate Bush's "Infant Kiss" - also written in the first person:

"What is this? An infant kiss
That sends my body tingling?

I've never fallen for
A little boy before.
No control.

Just a kid and just at school.
Back home they'd call me dirty.
His little hand is on my heart.
He's got me where it hurts me.
Knock, knock. Who's there in this baby?
You know how to work me.

All my barriers are going.
It's starting to show.
Let go. Let go. Let go."

Sounds pretty damning also, and that she could be 'next on the list'...until you discover, as I did recently via another forum where this is being discussed, that this song is actually written from the point of view of a fictional character in a story, where a governess is being haunted by the ghost of a man who takes posession of the child. It's based on the film 'The Innocents' which in turn is based on the novel "The Turn of the Screw"

That puts it in a completely different light. In the case of 'Forbidden Fruit' Roy Harper may well be likewise creating an imaginary scenario expressing a fantasy about a fictitious character.

Artist's have always expressed the darker aspects of human nature and the sub-conscious through songs, literature and art.

It concerns me that there could be a form of censorship creeping in with this, and we could end up reverting to a Victorian society dominated by repression and denial, where at the same time all kinds of unsavoury things take place 'in secret' - bearing in mind that this was an era when not only abuse, but child prostitution went on, underneath the veneer of respectabiliity.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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,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 - 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,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: 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,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: 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,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: 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 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: 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 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: 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: 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: GUEST,Arkie
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 06:06 PM

This is the Roy Harper I know.

Roy

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: 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: 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: GUEST,Guest
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 07:33 PM

You are all heart Jack!?

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,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: 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: Acorn4
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 12:28 PM

This from today's Guardian:-

"Roy Harper - Charges Dropped"

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 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 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 - 01:58 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Lyr Add: Roy Harper - FORBIDDEN FRUIT
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 03:50 PM

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another brilliant blog on Roy's trial.

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

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

Hats Off To Roy - from the blog of Anna Raccoon

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

Lizzie, PLEASE go away.

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

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

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

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

Best

≈Michael≈

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the historical context of the song.

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

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

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

The case was not retried.

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

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

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

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

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

Either way it's a crap lyric.

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

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

Subject: RE: Roy Harper CLEARED
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 03:08 PM

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

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

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

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

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


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

The details I await.

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

'And then there's Forbidden Fruit the thirteen-year-old-girl thing. I'm a Lewis Carroll freak, basically I love to watch things like Alice in Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass. I'm into the beauty of the young female, and the older I get, the more fascinated I become. That's probably true of most men, but I'm totally honest about it. That song's an absolute admission if you like. I mean I'm a great man for women, full stop, but let's not get hung up here. Let's just say that Forbidden Fruit is way way over the top of Mrs Mary Whitehouse.'

(Roy Harper interview in Melody Maker, 1974)

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

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

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

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

-Joe-

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Thanks Joe.

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for changing the title as you have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It sounds highly unlikely

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

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

Yo, Liz! Get over yourself, will ya?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modette is right

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

Greg - Guest(?) - Modette - Mr Bridge

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

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

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

≈M≈

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very well put, Richard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Joe-"   


Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Gambaccini on 'Operation Yewtree'

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

Mr. Offer,

This corpse is stinking of putrifaction! ! !

It is about time it mercifuly went down under.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

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

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

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

Christ, Liz, what drugs are you on?

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

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

Think you too.