BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 01:13 PM

The post above (01:01pm) was NOT made by me. I object most strongly that somebody is using my name and Guest tag in this way. Please could a Moderator confirm this and delete the post forthwith.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 01:11 PM

No I don't think this thread is bizarre;
and I'm reasonably sure a uk based mod would not think so either.

Just curious, are there any UK based mods any more ?

Not saying UK threads should ownly be moderated by UK based mods,
But on some issues and news stories, it might not go amiss.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:59 PM

This would have solved the whole thing if those making complaints had followed suit.

End. Of. Story.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:55 PM

Right, I'm bored with this now. There's no reasoning with Lizzie - she's determined to keep on ploughing the same old, obsessive furrow and nothing anyone else writes makes a blind bit of difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:51 PM

Nick, that link gives me a blank Google search phrase.

MLC -if you want to understand the difficulties of prosecuting someone with indecent images on their computer when the images do not state an age of the person portrayed GO AND READ THE LINK I GAVE.

I do not believe that the Countess ever paid you such a compliment. I only remember her pointed disgust and contempt at your vacuous posturing.   

Ebbie. The Defence DID make certainly most of the points MLC makes. A quick Google will show you. Evidently the jury weighed the defence case thus made, and found it wanting.

MLC -

(1) why contact a person who did something unlawful to you? Have you ever heard of blackmail? Doh!
(2) It can be very hard to place important dates from your childhood. I was trying only yesterday to remember when my father and I first went out to try to do 100 on the M1 (failed by 1 mph according to our speedo) - and my first guess was out by 4 years. The Portsmouth issue is however quite odd - but it was very specifically brought to the court's attention by the defence that diligent searches had been made to no avail.
(3) You need to think about what is called "similar fact evidence" and how a multiplicity of weak strands when added together make a rope that is synergetically (look it up) stronger.

I can hardly believe I am paying you the compliment of putting rational points to you. You will waffle on as always. Jack has it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Musket
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:39 PM

As this thread is about The UK, the link to George Davis is understood by those discussing this UK topic.

A bit ironic all the same Nick...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:36 PM

Oh, and I've just noticed you deleted my other recent resonable contribution .
Now unless you have good motive, I might begin to suspect you are getting a little bit petty and cranky ???

It's almost amusing the title of this thread is "Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread"

---

You're continuing to harp about deleted off-topic material posted by the mudcat troll. The topic is bizarre enough already, don't you think? --mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Nick
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:23 PM

Next they'll be telling us that George Davis isn't innocent.

My favourite comment today is "I have found out via the internet, searching and searching and searching...One thing Diane used to compliment me on was that I had a knack of finding amazing links, bless her."

And the bit about images. Luckily I came across this after a lot of searching - AND it has an image with it which makes it that much more authentic *smug smile*

It's threads like this that remind me how wonderfully batty the internet is.

---

It's impossible to make heads or tails of what that link is supposed to be pointed to. --mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Jack Campin
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 11:41 AM

I do not want to be a member of this forum any longer

Then stop posting to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 11:21 AM

Question: Where, in all this, was the Defence? Were these points that LC makes brought out in court? Shouldn't the ire be directed toward the Defence team?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 10:41 AM

Honest, Lizzie; if I have criticised the way you write it must have been years ago. Certainly in no instance I can recall.   If I have gone on to criticise something else in a post, well that's a different matter, innit? But I have no intention of commenting, favourably or adversely, on the manner if your writing. As you say, you are the way you are and that's fine by me -- and I honestly don't mean that to sound patronising: it's just the way I write!

Best

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 10:23 AM

How do I know what, Claire?   And email whom?

I have found out via the internet, searching and searching and searching...One thing Diane used to compliment me on was that I had a knack of finding amazing links, bless her.

I can often find out far more from Google Images, for instance, than I can from Google itself.

I have been checking the papers every day and I've been traumatized at the vile things they have stated in their determined, no....paranoid....efforts to turn everyone against Rolf Harris.

ALL of what I have stated in this thread and in the other one, can be checked out by any of you. I have put MANY links in, but few even bother to open them it seems.


Unlike the majority in here, I cannot believe ANY woman who states that a man abused her in a place to which he has NEVER been linked, ever, this man being a MAJOR star at that time, whom, she also claimed, was giving a concert.

I CANNOT believe a woman who sold her story for $60,000.

I WILL NOT believe a very clever prosecution lawyer who then turned even this on it's head, stating immediately that her client would be vilified for doing so, but had been coerced into doing this by her controlling boyfriend, thus making her out to be the innocent party..Take a look at the link to the magazine photo of her telling her story, where she's standing, hands on hip, grinning at the camera...

I do NOT believe Bindi's EX friend in the slightest.....for the reasons mentioned above, many times over...

And...I do NOT believe the woman in Cambridge either who was around 5 YEARS out on her dates, over an episode which is seared into her brain....

Please, read my posts, as I put all this info down in them, as well as links to this information.

By all means you all believe that Rolf Harris is a vile, putrid, dark-sided, evil, sexually abusing paedophile if you so wish.

I choose to stand right back and look far deeper and the story I see shocks me, from the fact it even came to court in the first place, to the final chapter of it, so cleverly played out by the police and the CPS and the prosecution who left you feeling that his computer was filled with images of child porn, as were the floorboards of his house....but hey, despite this, they're NOT going to prosecute because there's no point at all and it's in no-one's interest, not even the little children they claim he was looking at...

So much for them giving a toss about child porn then, eh????

But, it makes a GREAT final chapter in their Book Of Lies.......

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:12 AM

Anybody here ever heard of Svengali ........... you perhaps Lizzie?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Claire M
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:10 AM

Hiya! I'm not v good w/ working out dates, ages etc. but affair w/ 70+ y/o man??

When we really admire someone, we *want* them to be kind, loving, caring etc. We "just know" they are (what we really mean is we hope) they're all these things even if they're not. We feel like they care about us; we look forward to "seeing" them.

To Lizzie: how do you know all this re RH ?? Do you think E Mail would be better??

To Eliza: thanks re info on prison life. I find this kind of thing fascinating. Convents, too.

I nearly went bananas when I found out; but I'm glad he's got his just desserts now.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:09 AM

It is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false. To admit that the false has any standing in court, that it ought to be handled gently because millions of morons cherish it and thousands of quacks make their livings propagating it ... is to abandon a just cause to its enemies, cravenly and without excuse.

H. L. Mencken "The American Mercury" (May 1926)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:57 AM

No, Richard, it didn't...and..I've never said a thing about Gary Glitter, nor do I intend to.

So, Howard, could you please explain to me how Bindi's ex-friend, note the word EX, there, managed to overcome her shock and horror to ask Rolf for £25,000 for an apparent 'donation' for a bird sanctuary?

You see, after the things she claims he did, nothing, but NOTHING would have got her back in touch with him again, in reality, would it?


And with regards to your comments about the images said to have been found on his computer, I totally disagree. ANYONE who is found with such images should be taken to court and prosecuted for that, for THEY are The Market which drives that entire industry.

It makes NO sense whatsover that they've decided not to prosecute, other than ending this whole sordid farce of a trial on EXACTLY the note they wanted it to end on, embellished further by the NON-Story of The Plumber & The Porn.

Geez, if you saw this whole thing in a Hollywood Movie, you'd walk out over such a story of utter disbelief!!

ROLF HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF SEXUALLY ABUSING A 7YEAR OLD WHO CLAIMS HE WAS IN A COMMUNITY HALL TO WHICH HE HAS ***NEVER*** BEEN LINKED TO ***EVER*** HAVING VISITED IN ANY WAY!

What if this had happened to YOUR son or someone in YOUR family, Howard, would you deem that to be ACCEPTABLE?????

Even if he were acquited tomorrow, or outlives his sentence, he will NEVER be safe again, due to the shocking and unbelievable press coverage which turned Rolf into An Evil Monster within HOURS of his being found guilty by 12 jurors....

The judge, as far as I was concerned was on the side of the prosecution, very much so, especially in his summing up prior to sentencing....almost willing the jury to find Rolf guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:36 AM

Gosh MLC - it sounded remarkably like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Howard Jones
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:32 AM

Lizzie, if you're going to review the evidence you have to review it all. As well as asking how the jury could convict on some evidence you find wanting you must ask how they could not convict when faced with other evidence. There was a lot more evidence than you've commented on - the judge's summing up took three days. You're belief in his innocence seems to be founded on faith in his good character (despite never having met him), selective choice of evidence and an assumption that all his accusers are lying.

You don't seem to understand the shock and trauma that abuse victims report they feel, or have any sympathy for the reasons why they did not feel able to come forward sooner. At this very moment the inquest is taking place of Frances Andrade, who killed herself after giving evidence about abuse she received as a child - reliving the memories and being grilled about them in court were too much for her. As CS points out, one of the reasons they don't come forward is the attitude of people who blame the victim. You protest about this comment, but just read your own posts.

It is reported that the CPS decided it would not be in the public interest to prosecute him for the porn images on his computer. It is difficult to see how the cost of such a trial could be justified or the public interest served when he is already in jail and may well die there.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 07:44 AM

Right, back in 'membership' name now.

Sorry, above post came out a bit muddled...but you will get the gist.



MtheGM, I do not have *specific* instances, as I don't copy other people's posts, but you have, in the past, gone on and on about the way I write, what I write about, how I write etc..and even when you've said kind things, you follow it up with criticism about something else. I've never commented on how you, or anyone else writes, ever. Nor will I ever do so.   I write in a way which is simply natural to me, that's all and would appreciate it if I were just left alone to be me. I do not think you're a bad person, quite the opposite, in fact...but I just write the way I do, as it's natural for me to do so. I don't care about the rules or expectations of others.....


CS, how DARE you say such a thing. I'm actually one of the few folks in here who is daring to stand up for someone whom I believe has been treated appallingly.

Please, CS, SHOW me the 'evidence' that Rolf was at the community centre in Portsmouth. He was said to have just finished singing songs, so there'd have been an audience. Yet there is nothing, not a newspaper story (and they've search for years either side of the date given too), not a local person who recalls this 'gig', nothing whatsoever to place Rolf Harris in that hall. He was a HUGE star back then and without any doubt whatsoever this story WOULD have been reported on.

Tonya Lee lied. She admitted to this in Court.

I, unlike so many others, am NOT going on what the journalists say, but on what the defence said, searching out these things and finding they spoke the truth.

The local Portsmouth paper, 'The News' who had their archives searched for info on Rolf's gig, nothing being found, have told me they refuse to look deeper for any evidence, despite me asking them to, despite me asking them why they'd believe such a story from anyone, when they KNOW that Rolf wasn't even THERE.

So, you're telling me that this is RIGHT, CS?

If this were happening to your son, would you not be jumping up and down in rage?

The Cambridge witness was 5 years out in her dates. FACT
She got the programme title totally wrong. FACT
There was no-one who saw her alleged attack happen. FACT

Tonya Lee made $60,000 from selling her story. (links above) FACT
She lied to the police about this. FACT
Her boyfriend stated she made it all up to pay off her debts. FACT
She WAS in debt at this time. FACT

Bindi's ex-friend said Rolf started to sexually abuse her on holiday, yet wrote in her diary that this holiday had been 'great'. FACT

She asked Rolf Harris for £25,000 donation for a bird sanctuary AFTER their affair had ended, despite stating she was terrified of him and had been trapped in this relationship due to her terror and horror. FACT!

LOOK AT THE LINKS I'VE PUT UP.....

ESPECIALLY look at THIS!




If you don't believe me, go and look on Google, this was all stated in the trial and Bindi's ex-friend admitted to it all, stating that she approached Rolf for money as he'd told her he would always help her if she needed help. FACT.


You would NOT go NEAR someone who had been sexually abusing you for 10 YEARS ever, EVER again, would you, had you managed to 'escape' their clutches?   

Oh..and this....

I got the story about plumber wrong. He apparently was doing work in Rolf's previous home whilst Rolf was living there. He then waited over 40 years before going to the police about his allegations of child porn being under the floorboards. The police found nothing.

Again though, if YOU had gone to the trouble of hiding bad stuff under your floorboards, would you let your plumber, or anyone else, ever pull those floorboards up?

And, if you'd kept such stuff, to look at from time to time, or to add to, over the years, you'd have to continually take your floorboard up to access them, either making some kind of 'handle' for easy opening, or digging away with a screwdriver each time, in which case, yet again, the police would have noticed something...

AND, if they had this story, on TOP of their 'child porn on his computer' story, then WHY did the Crown Prosecution Service NOT prosecute him, because in my book, child porn is not only illegal, but horrific, and for any legal department to turn its head away from prosecuting those who create a market for it, makes no sense and is shockingly out of order, isn't it?

Give me answers to my questions, evidence..and hey, I'll be as quiet as a mouse..but at present, to me, this all stinks to high heaven and far beyond...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:16 AM

Whenever people whinge about society going to the dogs and getting it all wrong, Lizzie Cornish serves to remind us that they get a hell of a lot right too. If her logic is offended, it generally means things are working.

Criminals behind bars who in earlier times would get away with awful abuse on account of their celebrity or establishment links shows that we can get it right sometimes too.

Child abuse has to stop. Full stop.
Abuse of vulnerable adults too.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:35 AM

""The Hard Question: why do smart people believe weird things? My Easy Answer will seem somewhat paradoxical at first: Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.....Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational belief, regardless of what we previously believed. Instead, the facts of the world come to us through the colored filters of the theories, hypotheses, hunches, biases, and prejudices we have accumulated through our lifetime. We then sort through the body of data and select those most confirming what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that are disconfirming."" Michael Shermer

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:12 AM

Lizzie people like YOU are the very reason that those who have been abused at work by their peers or bosses, or by parents or friends of parents, or anyone with a veneer of social respectability are afraid to come out and tell the truth of what happened to them.

Thank heaven's your victim blaming mentality is no longer the norm. Hundreds of thousands of women children and men, have lived in silence often for their entire lives, because of the fear of how loud, ignorant, condemnatory voices like yours could damage their lives further.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:12 AM

But have you "advanced liberty", Lizzie, by going on, and on, and on, and on and ... at us?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:31 AM

CS (as so often) nails it. All MLC has is fact-light posing ranting and verbal diarrhoea, and her usual total lack of self-discipline.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:53 AM

Give it up, Lizzie, you're endless rants are convincing no-one! I will concede, though, that you're more concerned about this case than anyone else in the known Universe - just like you're more concerned than anyone else about all of the other causes that you're concerned about.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:30 AM

Reminds me of the old chestnut about the Boy Scout Troop marching through the town on Remembrance Sunday, and the proud mum pointing out her little cherub to the people around her, and exclaiming, "Oh look, they're ALL out of step except my little Johnny!".

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:19 AM

This thread could be summed up thus:

LizzieCornish - on having read bits of the evidence, repeated by journalists in the media - believes that all of Harris' accusers are lying through their teeth.

The Jury - on having heard all of the evidence, in a courtroom under oath, including that presented by experts - believe that Harris' accusers are telling the truth.

The rest of us suppose that the Jury are much more likely to have got it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:23 AM

And still no answer, Lizzie, to my IMO perfectly reasonable question, now twice put, as to the basis for your accusation that I "tried to control the way you write".

I think I should be told.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 07:00 PM

Lizzie, you seem very sure that Rolf is a kind, loving, caring man - based on what? You admit you've never met him. Besides, it is quite possible he is all these things and still guilty.

The examples you and the blog you link to are just a few of the hundreds of pieces of evidence which was put before the jury over several days. Their decision will have been based on all of this evidence. We do not know what evidence they based their decision on, and what they thought was too weak. In particular the claim that the question of whether or not he was in Cambridge was decisive is pure fantasy - the blogger cannot know what view the jury took of this.

I agree that uncorroborated evidence must be viewed with caution, however without a lot of sexual offences would never be convicted. The overall accumulation was sufficient to persuade this jury. Any case involves weak evidence as well as strong, evidence which can be rebutted and which cannot. A jury has to evaluate all the evidence and decide.

Like you, I am shocked and find it hard to believe that Rolf Harris could have committed these offences. However, given his previous reputation and the weaknesses in some of the evidence, it seems to me that if a jury were going to make a mistake it would have been more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 05:56 PM

See, I am NOT the only one!

Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Blog



Howard, that letter proves NOTHING other than Rolf wrote to his friend, the father of this woman to apologize, as he was distraught after she'd told him she'd hated him for much of their affair.

It is NOT an admission of guilt that he had been grooming her, nor that he was done ANYTHING out of order. He states she was over 18 and that he had thought their relationship came from a place of love.

He would have been really cut up about hurting her. Rolf Harris is a GOOD man!!

When he found out that he had hurt his wife, purely be accident one day, after finding the remnants of her diary, which she thought she'd burned, again, purely be accident, as part of it hadn't burned at all...he read her words saying how lonely she was, so very, very lonely and at times, she'd wanted to die from boredom and loneliness...He then realized with shock, how bloody selfish he'd been, assuming she was happy being on her own whilst he went around the world following his career. She doesn't like travelling excessively. He also began to realize that he'd let Bindi down badly too.

If you noticed, his daughter and his wife were BOTH there, his daughter EVERY day, Alwen on the days she could manage to stagger into Court on her old, wobbly legs, bless her...

That horrible prosecution lawyer even tried to twist that into foulness though, saying that it was all for the cameras, all for show, nothing else...Alwen can hardly WALK! Rolf is her Carer....

He is a kind, caring, loving man..and yet, in a matter of days the British Press have turned him into someone even more foul than Savile and you have all gone along with it!

Geezus!

My opinion is that this girl knew EXACTLY what she was doing and that she may well be a narcissist, one who seeks attention and pity...Whilst she was with Rolf, as his mistress, I think it made her feel important, loved etc...but when he ended it, feck, all hell broke loose.....

Trust me on this one, you can NEVER cross a narcissist, for if you DARE to finish with them before THEY are finished with you, or dare to stand up to them, or criticize them in ANY way, then they will turn on you like an entire pack of wolves, all rolled into one Killer Wolf..

Rolf COULD have said some vicious things about her. He said nothing other than she had asked him for money.

She had. £25,0000 for a 'donation' to a bird sanctuary. She had a new boyfriend by that time, odd, for a woman who has been so horrendously sexually abused, but she'd managed to find another relationship....and, she'd also found the 'courage' to approach the very man who had kept her trapped in that relationship, due to his wicked ways and evil persona....because she wanted money....

Oh, purleeeeeeeeeze!!!

Meanwhile, Tonya Lee has already given another interview, this time laughing with joy that 84 year old Rolf is in prison..(see above for link to that)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 05:08 PM

There is of course nothing wrong with "no frills sex" - so long as the other party is over age and consents and the grooming offences do not apply - which they didn't then.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Henry Piper of Ottery
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 05:06 PM

Regarding Lizzies comments about the Stash of Porn found under the Floor of Harris's Former Home.
In my then occupation as an Estate Agent, the firm I worked for at the Time In Beckenham, was given instructions to put the house in Sydenham on the Market, and I was sent to measure up the property and to prepare Particulars. when I visited the house Every Room was Stuffed Full of Paintings, by R,H and his Wife,also an Artist, Probably several hundred in total, when I again visited the House a week later, all the Paintings were Gone. We were told they had been moved to the Harris's new home.
If you could move several hundred paintings why not a clutch of porn? could that be the reason nothing was found.??

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 04:58 PM

Obviously it would have been preferable if the allegations had been made sooner, not least because the memories of both prosecution and defence witnesses are likely to be less reliable after a long period of time. However a long delay in making the allegations does not mean they are untrue.

Lizzie has identified some claims made in court which she believes do not stand up. If true, that does not in itself undermine other more convincing evidence. We do not, and cannot, know what weight the jury placed on that evidence. We do know that the jury decided there was sufficient evidence to convict, even taking into account the time which has elapsed.

Lizzie is entitled to her opinion, but like so many of her opinions it doesn't seem to be founded on the evidence, just on her feeling that something isn't as she would like it to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Nick
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 04:57 PM

There seems little comment on this thread about the jurors.

They are the ones who, in the light of the evidence and its presentation, either got it dead right or dead wrong.

The one thing that I remember from my time doing jury service was how very seriously everyone took it. They were very aware of how major it is to judge someone and to live with the consequences of that decision - especially if it entails removing someone's liberty.

I would guess that they, like many people who have offered views in the media and here, would have been enormously aware of the reputation and image of the defendant. I dare say that if they are a cross section of the population that a number of them will have previously had warm feelings towards him. I would think that is an even greater reason to weigh the evidence and be as sure as they could of the decision they came to.

They also have the benefit of being there in person and seeing the defendant - their body language, their gestures, their tone of voice. None of which come across unless you are there.

I'm guessing that Rolf Harris also had a decent legal team who presumably had some clue of what of they were doing.

Personally I have no real idea whether he did or didn't do it. I didn't follow the trial that much. I know from personal experience that going to the police in matters of indecent assault is not something that you'd do lightly. In the case of accusing someone in the public eye I would think it even harder as the scrutiny you are likely to come under is that much higher if the complaint fails. It is not something that you'd do lightly.

A unanimous decision on every count is quite a measure of certainty where the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. On a such a high profile trial I am tending to favour the jury as they were actually there.

To quote a newspaper article, I'm thinking that this would have a pretty strong effect on me as a juror. It's also probably not the brightest thing to commit to writing -

QUOTE
"There was one key that unlocked the complex child sex abuse case against Rolf Harris and led to his conviction and probable jailing.

It was a letter Harris wrote to the main victim's father in 1997.

"This is a confession of child abuse," prosecutor Sasha Wass QC told the jury in her closing address.

Seven of the 12 indecent assault charges related to the main victim.

She was a childhood friend of Harris's daughter Bindi. The two girls were like sisters.

The victim was abused from the age of 13 until she was almost 30.

In the letter, Harris talked of being in a "state of abject self-loathing" and being sickened by himself "when I see the misery I have caused".

The prosecution argued, successfully, that didn't make sense if, as Harris claimed, his daughter's friend instigated sexual contact after she was 18.

Harris had effectively "nailed his colours to the mast".

"You've given away rather too much in this letter," Wass told Harris when he moved from the dock to the witness box.

The crown went on to prove the star targeted, groomed and dehumanised his daughter's friend until she performed "like a prostitute" in her 20s.

The letter meant Harris couldn't deny sexual relations with the complainant.

And explaining how he had a 10-year "affair" with someone to whom he barely spoke proved difficult.

Wass was withering. There'd been no passion, no love, no friendship - just "no frills sex".

When pressed on the detail of his sexual encounters, Harris was reticent.

At one stage, he told the court his daughter's friend once performed oral sex on him in public. He couldn't remember specifics but noted it was "very enjoyable".

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 02:32 PM

"Paedophilia" is often said when the speaker intends to mean ephebophilia (or intends to blur the two in order to denigrate).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 02:29 PM

Hearsay is a statement that is not made in court (ie under oath) that is repeated in court.

So if I were to say in court "Fred told me Bill killed Brian", the assertion that Bill did that is hearsay, because Fred was not under oath when he said it.

The weight to be placed on hearsay these days is to be determined by the court. It is no longer inadmissible as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_English_law

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 02:24 PM

It is not necessary, under the Protection of Children Act to "prove" that the person depicted was in fact under 18.

"Where the age of the subject of a photograph is uncertain (i.e. where the identity of the subject is unknown), the subject's age shall be determined from the photograph.

Section 2.-(3) provides that a person is to be taken as having been a child at any material time if it appears from the evidence as a whole that he was then under the defined age of a child."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 01:45 PM

There have been speculations over the years about the hidden lives of Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll, author of the 'Alice' books) and JM Barrie ('Peter Pan' author) although no definite evidence has ever been found. I still enjoy these works and find them interesting and strange. I suppose one can continue to take pleasure in the Arts and divorce it in one's head from the possibly immoral creators of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Claire M
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 01:35 PM

Hiya !! It's sad. RH is also part of the backdrop to my life. Watching his animal shows w/ parents & wanting to adopt every cat/dog on there; being treated to a rendition of JtP by parents while walking stiffly in hellishly painful callipers – my extra legs -- ; turning plastic into a wobble board in design tech lessons (we all did it) his cartoon club; nearly weeing myself @ his songs. & of course we'd got Jake the Pig, who spent his life convinced he was a dog.

I had a support worker who lived in Australia for a while. She taught me trad songs & sent me lots of books. I loved koalas & always wanted a real one, so mum got me a toy koala. I called him Blinky Bill after one in 1 of said books, & was forever trying to feed him w/ leaves, in the hope he'd come alive. I've still got him.

As sad as it is, RH wasn't the entire backdrop to my life, so I'll live. It doesn't stop me enjoying said songs.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 01:12 PM

And I agree that the Esther Rantzen extract was most interesting in itself: but do not quite see its bearing. Of course we all know that enormous fear has been generated of being thought to be a pædophile if one addresses a strange child in any circumstances whatever. But what has this to do with the jury's finding as to what they believed one individual had done to certain children [and others] known to him, not casually met in a public place, over a period of years in the 1980s?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 01:00 PM

I don't think anybody is trying to "paint you dark", as you put it Lizzie. Most just seem to be saying that they find your arguments [which really are 'hearsay', being based entirely on what you may have read somewhere, not on any actual evidence that you have personally heard, as was the jury's verdict] to be not very convincing, vehemently as they may be expressed.

You have not answered the last question I put to you at 0617 a.m, as to "Where or when did I ever try to control the way you write, dear Lizzie?" It seems to have been rather a serious accusation for you to have aimed at me, so I think you owe it to me to produce some reference to, or quote from, anything I had previously posted to justify it. I am, after all, one of those as often as not on your side, unlike many others here who, I agree, do just seem to have it in for you much of the time. So -- something specific, please, to explain your attack on me?

Regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 12:44 PM

"The veteran broadcaster, (Esther Rantzen) who founded the counselling service ChildLine, warned that young people are now being harmed by the widespread suspicion that anyone who has contact with children could be a child abuser.

Her fears were confirmed by an experiment she helped conduct in a busy shopping centre, which found that 99 per cent of adults chose to walk on by rather than going to the assistance of two children who looked lost and distressed.

Even the handful who did stop admitted they were worried that people would assume they were trying to abduct the children.

This comes amid growing concern that in the wake of high-profile cases such as the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the Soham murders, all adults are now viewed as paedophiles unless they can prove themselves innocent.

There are now no men under 25 teaching in state-run nurseries, such is the fear of being branded a child molester, while from next year 11.3 million adults will have to have their backgrounds checked by the Independent Safeguarding Authority before they can work or volunteer with under-16s.

Even malicious allegations made against teachers or priests must now be kept on file until they retire, while council officers are questioning the motives of any lone adults who walk through a public park.

Rantzen asked of the results of the test, to be shown on TV tonight: "What does that say about our attitude to children now? Have we unwittingly put up barriers protecting ourselves, but harming them?

"It seems to me that many adults may now actually be putting children at risk, because we are so afraid someone will suspect us of having sinister motives if we help them.

"I blame myself for a lot of this. Thirty years ago most people didn't realise that abuse ever happened, so abusers just got away with it. But in 1986 we made a programme called Childwatch in which we pointed out that abuse is far more common than most people realise, but of course it's a secret crime, it happens mainly in children' homes, within the family.

"Now people are treating abuse as if it goes on behind every tree."

She added: "The tragedy is there are people who hurt children, and we must protect them against pain and abuse. But unless we hang on to our common sense the whole of child protection is going to suffer, so many of these rules and attitudes are designed to keep adults safe, to keep jobs safe, to keep organisations safe, to keep councils safe. Our priority should be to keep children safe."

In the experiment, to be shown on ITV1's Tonight programme, two child actors were left alone in a London shopping mall looking upset while hidden cameras were set up to observe how many people offered them assistance.

A total of 1,817 people walked past the children, a seven-year-old girl and a nine-year-old boy, but only five did something to help.

Almost 500 people walked past the boy before one of them informed the shopping centre manager about his plight, and more than 100 ignored the girl before one of them stopped to ask if she was OK.

In addition, the five adults who did stop to help all admitted they had been worried their would be seen as suspicious.

Mark Williams Thomas, a child protection expert and former policeman, said: "It does concern me that no member of the public is even asking this child are they OK. They actually had to walk around them."



Esther Rantzen Blames Herself

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 12:08 PM

Update on the 'plumber story'...It wasn't even IN Rolf's house. It was his FORMER house. Somehow though, between the plumber finding it and the police being alerted, and going to search for it, it had all disappeared.

So, maybe Rolf kept the key to his former home and popped back there every day from his Thameside Mansion when the folks were out, to rip up the floorboards and read one of his old magazines...

It's ridiculous!!   The whole thing is nuts!

And IF there was child porn there, then why did it disappear, and who made it disappear?

It wasn't Rolf, he no longer lived there...

I once found a pair of mini-knickers wedged behind the toilet cistern in my house on Dartmoor, when the plumbers were putting in a new bathroom. Actually THEY were the ones who found them. I was left trying to explain to their chortling faces as to what the lacey knickers were doing behind the cistern, of course...and the more I protested that they were NOT mine, the more they chortled...

The woman who'd lived there before we did was a very prim and proper Scottish lady whose husband was in the Navy. She had 4 adult sons, most of whom lived away. Maybe they were husband's ?   :0) Sure as heck they weren't mine though...I wear Big Girl's Knickers, don't do all the flibbetygibbet up yer bum uncomfy stuff...

No, no, NO! What I meant about Vanessa was that if she cares so much about other women, about children etc, then why the feck didn't she speak out 20 years back when she KNEW that apparently there was filmed EVIDENCE of him trying to put his hand in her knickers?

The reference to her Harley St. Husband was because she would have been able to take the financial hit, had she lost her job due to speaking up. She didn't have to rely just on HER wages to keep a roof over her family's head.

Don't be silly, folks...I used to BE a Harley Street Secretary so I have a VERY good idea how much Harley St. Surgeons EARN!

Gawd, ANYTHING to try and use against me, right, to paint me as dark as you can....This is EXACTLY what the press have done with Rolf Harris, to the extent of shocking disbelief....I've been dealing with this kind of crap from many of you for a LONG time, so I've learned to duck and dive and stand up for myself....

A FEMALE presenter, Musket SHOULD BLOODY well HAVE come forward, ESPECIALLY when she KNEW there was (allegedly) filmed evidence and she was well off financially, thus not having to rely on her salary alone to care for her children...

Sadly, it would have been her Star Chasing Ambition, I feel, that stopped her from speaking out....

Cares about women?

My arse!!!!

I'd have rather slept with my kids on the street than have kept quiet, under those circumstances....

I've not seen this film, I've not see any photos....

Maybe it was a 'Carry On' moment, maybe they were having a laugh..without viewing the film, I've NO idea.

I'm also amazed that the combined weight, and fame, of The Nolan Sisters wasn't thrown at Rolf....

Over and Over, all these women who've kept silent....

And by the way, I've been abused recently, in a different way, so I know ALL about how it feels, believe you me...I chose NOT to keep quiet though..and for that, I've been lied about and vilified by some...I have not told the whole story, but he knows that what he did was shockingly bad. Hopefully, he will never, EVER do such a foul thing to any other woman, ever again...and no, I'm not talking about either of my ex-husbands....

It is awful when a man makes you feel violated...(same for men if a woman treats them in such a way)....but you should speak out, not only to the man concerned, but publicly too.

I'm just telling you that there are many points in this which make NO sense...and as he's been sent down on the basis of indecently assaulting a 7 year old, when he was NOT even in the very place she said he was, I think that stinks, I really, truly do!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Musket
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 11:15 AM

Its's nice for someone in prison that someone is looking out for them, but part of his parole conditions will be to face up to his crimes and be seen to atone for them, so if you want to help criminals, allow them to face up to their crime.

I don't recall reading or hearing anything about any miscarriage of justice. I have read though, when scanning Cornish's diatribe, character assassination and awful stereotypical crap. A female presenter on the telly shouldn't have come forward on the basis of being married to a doctor so doesn't need to work?

I'm no bloody feminist but what an awful thing to say?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 10:56 AM

Lizzie, you are criticising people for relying on what they have read and heard in the media, but you are in exactly the same position. You were not in court, you did not hear in detail the evidence which was presented or the arguments made to rebut it. To say that no evidence was presented is nonsense - there were days of evidence. To describe the evidence as 'hearsay' is likewise nonsense and simply shows that you do not understand what the term means. If much of it was uncorroborated then that is the nature of sexual offences, and why it is often so hard to obtain a conviction.

Some of the evidence may show discrepancies, and some of it may not be believed, but even so that does not mean that other evidence is not sound. You were not in the jury room and cannot know what evidence the jury accepted and what they rejected. They were there, and they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was sufficient evidence to convict. They spent enough time on this to suggest they considered the evidence thoroughly. We should accept their decision.

Like many people, Rolf Harris has been a popular entertainer since I was a child and forms part of the background to my life. I wouldn't call myself a fan but I've enjoyed much of his work. This has come as a shock, and it is sad to think this elderly man must now spend his final years in jail and may even die there. However it is even sadder to think what his victims have gone through.

Miscarriages of justice do happen. If real evidence can be found to show a miscarriage of justice has been done then I will be among the first to welcome it. However at the moment there seems to be nothing to suggest that, and even if some of the evidence could be discredited it is difficult to believe that it was all a conspiracy. Your belief in him is, I fear, nothing more than wishful thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 10:24 AM

Lizzie - I hope that you are never in the situation that some women experience. The absolute embarrassment of the 'he said she said', even now is enough to stop even prominent women from reporting these things, let alone a girl of 15, which Linda Nolan was when it happened to her. Many women choose to confront the abuser there and then and not take it further, particularly when the abuser has power and influence as is the case with the Yewtree abusers.

Then there is the situation. You are 'telling tales' on a much loved, very influential entertainer who is friends with those in high places. When, as was prevalent at the time, there was general atmosphere of 'she must have asked for it', would you really want to totally jeopardise your own position in the company? This applies to any woman who has been assaulted in this way, not just the well known. And so what if Feltz's husband could support her? That is a very chauvinistic attitude to take. Should she have been content to just be the wifey because she had lost her own career?

It is all very well, to sit in an ivory tower and say what should be done. In my own personal experience it would have led to a great deal of personal embarrassment and real problems for my then partner in the workplace to have done that and there was the very strong likelihood that it would all have been swept under the carpet to avoid any 'unpleasantness' and I could have been labeled as a troublemaker and sidelined in my own career.

Thankfully, now, these incidents are being brought into the light and that is good to see. Maybe there will be a change in the relevant culture and women and children will be less afraid to tell on adults for these abuses. I'm not going to hold my breath though. When even high politicians collude in covering up abuses what hope have the rest of us got?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 10:06 AM

I have no problem with anyone having a different opinion, Lizzie. I just want to know how you think that the two cases are so different. You are as fully convinced that Savile is guilty as you are that Harris is innocent. The only evidence against both is what the accusers have said. Do you have some knowledge or insight not available to th erest of us? To make a case proof is required and, as yet, you have not furnished any.

One should never make one's mind up over a matter before being absolutely certain of the facts

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Claire M
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 09:56 AM

Hiya! I do too. A flatmate worships the ground CR walks on so I really hope said rumours aren't true.

When I was younger I thought the sun shone from Michael Jackson's backside & got a lot of stick for it. I don't hold the same view now, but that's cos I played his stuff so much I ended up hating it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 09:56 AM

"Maybe the Dingo Ate Your Baby"?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Conan Boil
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 09:43 AM

"That said, it seems to me from what I've read in the press, that the two cases are remarkably similar; including lots of women from different places, all unknown to each other, corroborating each other's stories in their descriptions of Harris' behaviour."


hmmm....


If I were a novelist or screenplay writer, thrillers & mystery detective stories.
Then yes, one fanciful scenario could be an underground criminal dark web network;
secret international membership forums of wicked women collaboratively conspiring to concoct plausible accusations
to blackmail or destroy popular well loved celebrities......

... but that might be a bit too far fetched.. even for an ITV 1 mid week mini series....???

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 09:25 AM

Excuse me for having a different opinion to everyone else, Dave. They HAVE made up their mind about Rolf, having been brainwashed by some of the most evil reporting I've seen in my *life*, which has deeply upset me.

I'm searching for answers, writing to the CPS, did that today, phoning Hampshire Police and the local Portsmouth Papers, the Met Police (who've passed my concerns to the Operation Yewtree guys)..There's nowt wrong with that...

When I rang The Guardian earlier today, spoke to the lassie who answered the phone, about the now infamous, non-existent 'community centre' telling her my deep concerns she said "I'd never thought about that before, but you know, you're right, it WOULD be really easy to trace him as having appeared there, it would!"

Nobody's asking questions, so desperate are they to turn him into Savile..making out he was a really good friend of his, did his portrait etc..Look at this, from the youtube site of The Telegraph:

Video

Now, WHAT are they trying to infer from their description, under the video? I've NO idea when this was filmed, or why? Possibly it was just after Savile was knighted, with reference to his knighthood being made?

Of *course* Rolf would have known him, most people knew Savile, but that doesn't mean they into fucking dead people, as Savile was rumoured to have done..

I mean, truly, am I missing something?

He goes to a summer fete at Broadmoor, and then, he's 'visiting patients to watch them undress' ????   And yet, Alison Pink, the former Broadmoor patient, only stated this the other day????? Well, at least she's got her 'Andy Warhol Moment' now, her name in the paper...etc...


And Cliff has, somewhat oddly, become a full fledged citizen of Barbados, giving up his British citizenship entirely, allegedly for tax reasons..well, yes, I can understand that...but it's also rumoured that he can't be extradited from Barbados...

Wouldn't Rolf have fled elsewhere when the plumber allegedly ripped up his floorboards and found what he did then? The police, yet again, not finding a THING though, just as they've never found a link to that ghostly 'community centre' where he's supposed to have abused the woman who was then 7   ???

I don't know, tis all a mystery to me but not so much a mystery as to why The Human Species have turned into a Baying Mob over Rolf without ever bothering to look deeper.

Maybe Cliff HAS done this to avoid paying tax. Good for him, if he has, as I'm sure he's paid out a bloody fortune over the years.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 09:10 AM

"Maybe Lizzie or someone else can enlighten me. Hopefully with facts rather than feelings!"

As I wrote above, if Lizzie was in possession of genuine evidence related to the Rolf Harris case she should have reported it to the appropriate authorities at an appropriate time. But, although I haven't ploughed through all of her 'contibutions' (I do have a life after all!) I would be prepared to bet that she has never been in possession of any such evidence. What she continues to re-gurgitate, over and over again, is her interpretation of case related material that she has read in the media. And her interpretation of that material is, of course, strongly biased towards the premise that 'Rolf is innocent'!

What puzzles me is why does she keep telling us? Why isn't she starting a 'Free Rolf Harris!' campaign? Best of luck with that, Lizzie!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 09:08 AM

..And, jacqui, ANY woman who decides to say nothing, when she knows there is filmed evidence of indecent assault having taken place, because she is worried about her career, perhaps, is surely letting ALL women down?

I'd rather lose my career and go to the police with the filmed evidence than stay silent for 20 years until 'something comes up'...wouldn't you?

She could have asked for a copy of that film, saying it was for herself alone..surely?

It's no good staying quiet, then going on about how women are SO abused...Shout out about it, whatever the consequences might be. At this time, Vanessa was married to a Harley Street Surgeon, so financially she'd have perfectly fine, even if she'd lost her career...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 09:05 AM

Jacqui - One should never make one's mind up over a matter before being absolutely certain of the facts

If only others would use the same rule!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 09:05 AM

Please, watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HizznLfkfssis video, where she states she had a 'great' holiday -
Video - after you have read this article below...

ALL these comments are from Bindi's ex-friend, the woman who had an affair with Rolf for 10 years, aged 18/28, until he ended that affair, claiming he had started abusing her at age 13. You see, I CANNOT Join The Dots here, in ANY way at all...and I still feel that Rolf Harris has been wrongfully imprisoned for crimes he did not commit at all. (see other posts further down my page too, for more details)

So, her diary states she had a GREAT holiday......

Please, draw your own conclusions.....


From Bindi's ex-friend

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 08:59 AM

Well, apparently, a plumber has now come out saying he found a stash of child porn under Rolf's floorboards, HOWEVER, as ever, this is a NON-story as the police found NOTHING AT ALL...and tell me, if YOU had hidden child porn or you chopped up mother-in-law under YOUR floorboards, would you let your plumber go in there?

I mean, that is NOT evidence, nor is it a story, but, it's now all over The Mirror, you know, the paper who asked how his wife could ever live with herself for not being able to satisfy him sexually, to the point where he went and abused children!! Neither the editor's secretary of the Mirror, nor Alison Philips who wrote that disgusting article, have bothered to answer my phone message left with them both...

Moral: Do NOT upset your plumber! ;0)

After he'd reported this, the police, despite finding nothing, put Rolf on their list of 'People to Keep A Jolly Good Eye On!'


And yes, who would EVER want to touch a child now in this country?

Esther Rantzen has a LOT to answer for..she even stated her own worries about Childline and starting it all up, how out of hand it's all become..

ANY man who DARES to touch a child after this, even his own child or grandchild, must need their head examined....and of course, soon, they'll be encouraging everyone to believe EVERYTHING that EVERY child says, with the parents/adults having to prove their innocence...


Ninteen Eighty Four, anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 08:52 AM

It is very difficult to accept that one of our idols might have feet of clay and I think that this is the problem here. I was sad when I heard that Dave Lee Travis was under investigation and, seriously, Cliff has been an idol of mine since I was about ten, so, if he is also involved, that would make me very sad.

Unfortunately, as is the case with any public figure, we only know the persona that they project through the media and in public appearances - we cannot, unless we actually know them personally, have any idea of what the private person is like. The jovial comedian who turns out to be a wife beater, or the children's entertainer who preys on his audience, we cannot say without any doubt that they could not do that as we don't know them.

As to why no-one made any objection in the Vanessa Feltz incident - these guys have a lot of influence. Big name entertainers, friends with those in power in the workplace, trust me, it happens in a lot of places. People are aware of the predilections of these men, they are just too afraid of their own jobs to make waves. I remember this particular, rather strange idea, but it was Channel 4, which explains a lot. I know, from personal experience, that it is possible to be groped without it being obvious to other people and, depending where his wife was standing, it may not have been obvious to her, even if members of the crew were aware. However, who was going to accuse one the most most famous and best loved entertainers of the time of this? Maybe someone with the same degree of influence but, it would appear, he was too fly to hit on someone who might speak out, which seems to be the way with abusers. Prey on those who can't, for whatever reason, fight back.

It is possible that there will be chancers coming along, making claims that cannot be substantiated in order to make money out of this scandal, but that does not mean that everything that has been said by a myriad of women, who do not know each other, is not the truth. What have Vanessa Feltz and Linda Nolan to gain from giving their stories? They open themselves up to a certain amount of doubt and ridicule, as can be seen in this thread. Not something that most would want to do, but, as Nolan says, if it helps others who have been abused by this man to come forward then it would be worth it.

I can see no difference between this case and the Saville case. Both were very famous entertainers, very involved with children and both with a lot of influence. Both cases rely heavily on the reports of their victims, the only difference being that Saville is no longer here to address those reports.

I think that it is real shame that someone with Harris's abilities, who had a legacy of fun and laughter with a lot of his songs, finishes up with a ruined reputation and a lot of disillusioned fans. However, based on his fame, I am pretty sure that the prosecution made sure that they had a cast iron case before proceeding and, short of actually reading the full trial transcript, we will never know the whole of the evidence that the jury heard.

On the jury having taken some time to reach a verdict - given his previous reputation I think, if I had been on the jury, I would have wanted to go over the evidence very carefully before rendering a guilty verdict. One should never make one's mind up over a matter before being absolutely certain of the facts and, with the length of the trial and the amount of evidence provided, that would mean going through it all in the jury room, maybe even playing devil's advocate to arrive at a correct verdict. To my knowledge none of the jurors has come forward to say that they were browbeaten into giving a guilty verdict, have they?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 07:15 AM

yes, Michael, I consider myself very fortunate not to have those inclinations.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 07:09 AM

Thanks, CS. I am genuinely interested in how the two cases are different. They do seem very similar to me but I may not be aware of all the facts. Maybe Lizzie or someone else can enlighten me. Hopefully with facts rather than feelings!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 07:02 AM

DtG: I haven't read Lizzie's posts, so I don't know what - if any - substantial evidence she's provided to prove that the Jury were wrong to convict Harris.

That said, it seems to me from what I've read in the press, that the two cases are remarkably similar; including lots of women from different places, all unknown to each other, corroborating each other's stories in their descriptions of Harris' behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 06:50 AM

So, specific question to all and sundry but hopefully with an answer from Lizzie as well.

Why is the situation between Harris and Saville any different?

They have both been accused of indecent acts
The only proof of those accusations is in statements made by the accusers.
The accusers have sold their stories to the press
There seems to have been some sort of cover up

As far as I can see the only difference is that Harris was found guilty by a Jury even though he could give his side of the story. We can only ever speculate on the outcome of a Saville trial.

Anyone?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 06:45 AM

I agree with you Michael, we human beings are riddled with odd impulses and feelings. Some feel the need to disinfect everything in sight for fear of germs, some have secret stashes of chocolate for midnight feasting when they are miserable, others have an addiction to Facebook or even Mudcat. For the most part our own peccadillos are harmless enough, at least if not indulged in to excess, but for others they are much more harmful, either to themselves or to others, or indeed both.

When I was younger I knew of a young man (the boyfriend of a girl at college) who hanged himself because he was plagued with fantasies about sex with children. Another young man I knew, killed himself around the same time, because he had also sexual identity issues - he felt like a woman in a mans body. I think it's terribly sad that either of those two young men were driven to kill themselves because of feelings they had no control over, and the taboos our society (albeit less so for transgender people today) places over such difference.

There are of course huge problems implicated in the acceptance of paedophilia within society. The despicable Paedophile Information Exchange (or teh "would you like a list of children available for abuse, and where to access them club") being a case in point of offenders and wannabe offenders sheltered under the naive (or ideologically fucking stupid) support of liberal-minded activists back in the day.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: eddie1
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 06:25 AM

My sympathies are firstly, and rightly, with the children who have been abused, irrespective of who might have perpetrated that abuse. Running a close second though is my anger of the effect that the actions of some sickos have had on adults, especially men, working with children. I spent a long time working with very vulnerable women, and their children, in a residential setting. During this time I was very often the only male in the project. As such, I was often a "father figure" to the children (and sometimes their mothers too), I have hugged a child who had fallen and skinned a knee. I have hugged a child after trying to tell him of the death of his grandmother. I'm a pretty large person and children often saw me as a challenge - a bit like the North face of the Eiger - and would climb onto my lap! I have walked around, holding a child standing on top of my feet while they squealed with laughter.

I would like to think that I brought a little something special to the lives of these children. Yes, I had fun too but in a delightfully childlike way.

I'm typing this through tears because I know that if I were doing that kind of work nowadays I would have to avoid a way of working that for me, and I believe the children too, was completely natural!

How can one maintain that level of closeness, something we all need in our lives, while keeping a child at arms length?

I am sorry for any men, and women too, who are working with children nowadays and are afraid to show any physical contact for fear of being accused of child abuse.

Eddie

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 06:17 AM

I think it appropriate to remark that I constantly thank whomever-there-might-be-to-thank, that such minor deviances from the norm as I happen to experience* have only ever involved relationships with fully consenting adults of like inclinations. I regard myself as exceptionally fortunate not to suffer from any condition which involves urges towards organisms [children below age of ability to give informed consent, animals, &c] unable to engage in fully consensual activity. Pædophiles are not so fortunate. I am not trying here, in any way, to condone their activities: they must control their inclinations, keep them in check, refrain from indulging them in any way. I admire, and have sympathy, for those many of them that do. But I must admit to a certain amount of pity, as well as a great amount of obloquy and contempt, for those who can't & don't.

Does anyone agree with me that those of us fortunate enough not to find ourselves in this situation should count our blessings. I would urge recollection that one demographic who are nowadays pretty well a protected species, victims sometimes of a despised -ism nowadays rightly hated and rejected by the right-thinking, found themselves until very recently (1960s)°°, in similar predicament.

~M~

*MYOB. Surely everyone has something they'd rather keep to themselves in the department of their lives!

°° At the end of 1954, in England and Wales, there were 1,069 men in prison for homosexual acts. Wikipedia

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 06:08 AM

Guest CS, you have a very good and positive attitude to all this filth that's coming to light. You're right, is IS encouraging to see it all being brought into the open. I must try not to be too upset by it. It's just that I had no idea how prevalent it is, and that evil priest being known to me is the tin lid!
.
I'm very sorry you suffered abuse yourself, and can only imagine how that has damaged you in lots of ways. However, I'm happy to read that you are in a good relationship and have found peace. I admire your robust determination and positivity.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 05:48 AM

Hi Eliza, I hope you don't think I was criticising you in any way. Not at all, I just wanted to highlight the need - in all discussions of this kind - to distinguish between child-abusers (a repulsive crime that does huge harm, often to multiple others) and paedophilia (a condition that harms no-one but the sufferer.)

A lot of people (indeed, I think most people) conflate them entirely, which is why on the one hand we often find people either coming down on one side or another of two polar ideas; the first one (I'll call it 'hard-line') castigating all paedophiles as monsters, and on the other (I'll call it 'liberal') as sick individuals in need of treatment.

Neither are true. Offenders rarely benefit from treatment, they are simply too morally corrupt and too far gone down their chosen road. As you say lots of other people, including single men for example, manage to continue their lives without resorting to rape or assault. Non-offenders however - so far as I understand - can gain some benefit from treatment.

I've said it elsewhere here, but I was myself abused as a child, it was very nasty stuff too. The psychological effects on me have hindered my life considerably. Though I am fortunate to have landed myself a wonderful bloke who's loved and supported me for twenty years now. I do understand why you find it all so disturbing.

There are huge issues in our society about organised corrupt groups (I've heard Masons mentioned and I don't think it's unrealistic to suppose that these secret groups shield their own) protecting one another. Each time I hear of a new revelation, a fresh stone overturned and the fetid little grubs wriggling in the light of day, I'm heartened rather than dismayed - in point of fact I rather like knowing that these sinister shitbags are probably shaking in their boots waiting for their turn to be exposed. Bring it on I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 05:46 AM

Note from Joe Offer: this post does not appear to come from the real Musket. I'd bet real money that the poster is an impostor.

A necessary remark, unfortunately. The message should have been "quarantined" to prevent anyone from responding. If guest monikers could be password protected, the problem of impostors would be largely solved.

Both Lizzie and (the cookied) Musket seem to have taken a step towards civilized discussion in this thread, which deserves recognition. More such steps would be further appreciated.

---

The troll has decided that all moderators are SRS and all have it in for him, but bad behavior is dealt with by several mods. The appearance of her name and/or location should be a clue to all that the post is spoofed. The troll is filled with hate, so he produces hate speech. Given nothing material with which to accuse any moderator (except deleting his hate speech) he resorts to personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 05:27 AM

Ignore the 'please see my posting below this one' bit, as I copied it from my FB page...You know the details of what she did...

Good to see she's so happy though.
AND..good to see she won't ever make any more money from her story...

Yeah, right.....................

Bet she'll make a buck or two from being 'Rolf's victim' in other ways though, eh?   

Again, apologies for sounding cynical.


Oh, and Musket, if that 'guest' wasn't you, posting in your name, and you're feeling a little upset over being 'falsely accused', just think, it could be worse, you could be sitting in Wandsworth Prison for the next (almost) 6 years (or longer if they can whip up enough hatred of him) like Rolf is.....

If the mods can verify it wasn't you, then all well and good.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 05:23 AM

Well, good ol' Tonya seems VERY happy....watch the video....

And WHY would she want a transcript of what she said in court?

Please see my posting below this one to the story she made LOADSA money from, before even GOING to the police, admitting in court she'd also lied to them about making money from selling this story....

Something is NOT right here, I can feel it in every bone in my body..and that's why my head has become fixed on this for a while, folks, so apologies if I'm boring the pants off you.....


My brain pattern, 'BloodyBoringitisWhenSomethingFeelsWrong' otherwise knows as 'BBWSFW Syndrome'


Tonya's Lawyers apply for Court Transcript of her Evidence

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 04:56 AM

Oops, forgot to put my name on the above 'Guest' post....

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 04:55 AM

Tonya, one of Rolf's 'victims', whose life has been so torn apart, looking pretty darn OK in one of the interviews she gave which brought her a small fortune, *before* she'd ever even gone to the police about her claims. She lied, openly, admitting this in court, to the police about ever having made money from selling her story.


Tonya Lee's magazine interview

Rolf has been labelled a paedophile by the accusations of one woman (then aged 7) who placed him in a community centre he was never AT. I've just phoned the local paper whose records were searched over many years, nothing ever being shown that Rolf was at any community centre in that area, ever...I've left a message for the Editor, I'll let you know if she comes back to me...

I cannot find any film of Vanessa's incident. It may take a while to go public. There are two photos from that programme on Google Images, both perfectly OK. WHY would they not have the actual image of Rolf doing what he is alleged to have done?


Yes, paedophiles are EVERYWHERE, but I do not believe Rolf Harris is one such person.


Dismantle the Catholic Church. Or let priests marry and ensure that that church is opened up in every way to the Police to investigate....

Get rid of the British Boarding School System too, in every way...for in there lies not only abuse and sexual abuse, but the separation of child from parents, which they now know can create Sociopaths when the child becomes so broken....

Start to LOVE our children, as a Nation. (We've always loathed them in this country)....and lastly, PAY mothers to stay at home and raise their children, or, PAY fathers enough to be able to support their family on ONE wage...(obviously, to keep the politically correct happy, some Dad's are far better Mother's - my own Dad being just such a Dad - and single mothers can raise wonderful children too...and women can go to work whilst Dad's stay home, and..and...and.....I'm not having a go at anyone here)

Musket, whoever you are, please know though that trying to cause me hurt by commenting on my looks only makes *you* look like a totally obnoxious prat. I've no idea what Richard said, but I've no doubt it had to do with totally disconnected from the spirit 'sex', as ever...We are all different and his outlook is most deinitely not mine.

Oh...and I've told the story before about the teacher who taught my daughter, being arrested for rigging up cameras in his classrooms to look up the skirts of his girl pupils...He was jailed. Came from Sidmouth College. One of the other teachers knew about this (he was a hate-filled man, really nasty piece of shite) but said nothing, just warned his mate that he could get into trouble...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 04:06 AM

A very interesting angle, Guest CS. I realise that people have a wide range of sexual tastes, urges and preferences. But I am not, here, concerned with those who don't act upon them. I have never suggested that non-practising paedophiles are evil, although I'm extremely repulsed by the whole concept. There are, after all, many people who are for several reasons unable to satisfy their sexual needs. The disabled, celibate folk, the bereaved, the 'chaste' before marriage and so on. With self-control they manage to survive without the sexual element in their lives. I am disgusted and angry about the child-molesters who do indulge their weird (and it most certainly IS weird) tastes by attacking children, thereby ruining their mental well-being and their future lives. What has disturbed me very much is the sheer extent of the perversion. I foolishly imagined it was relatively rare. But more and more 'rings' are being discovered, and one is tempted to become paranoid about any man who is involved in the pastoral or educational care of children. I'm afraid I cannot have any regard, sympathy for or understanding of any person, male or female, who harms children. The very thought of my dear little pupils over the years being attacked in this way makes me feel sick. Even that Catholic priest, who should have conducted himself as a man of God. He was actually the priest for the RC school in the district. It makes one shudder.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 03:57 AM

Paedophilia seems to be connected with power. It's a horrifying thought but perhaps it's always been so. And perhaps that impulse that leads some (?) powerful men to abuse children also leads them to abuse nature and the planet. In future we will need to start choosing our leaders with more care - or there will be no future. Who knows, we may be seeing the start of a profound revolution here ... or maybe not ...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 03:50 AM

Eliza, I've been following this and your other thread with interest. Thanks for some civil discourse on the topic I think you do well to avoid engaging with detractors.

As to your last point: "What also concerns me is the apparently widespread nature of this paedophilia. It's everywhere, they're everywhere. Why? What possible pleasure can there be in such ghastly stuff? I'm very upset."

As someone who has learned certain amount about it, I think it's worth aiming our disgust at *perpetrators* of child abuse, not at those who may - for whatever reason - have a dysfunctional or disturbed sexuality.

This is a point that rarely ever gets heard or understood, but paedophiles are not necessarily evil or disgusting people, they just happen - to very sadly - have an erotic fixation on pre-pubescent children and this may be something that is completely out of their hands.

What isn't out of their hands, is how they then conduct themselves, knowing that they have sexual desires that can never be fulfilled without harming another person.

Believe it or not, there non-abusive paedophiles, the numbers of non-abusers are not known (not by me certainly) as it's an incredibly taboo subject, which - unfortunately though unsurprisingly - leaves the *sufferers* (and I do mean sufferers) very reluctant to seek help and support.

We have a better idea of the numbers of abusers, as these are the paedophiles who abuse and whats more get caught abusing. Child abusers are pretty much a lost cause so far as any treatment is concerned, they've made their choices and have learned to validate them to themselves. Not so those who struggle with their affliction in shame and silence. Those paedophiles who are attracted to children but do not act on that attraction, deserve our respect and support as much as those who do act upon it deserve our disgust and condemnation.

We need to learn to put our fear and disgust of their desires to one side and try to judge them on how they act not on what they feel. Otherwise paedophilia will forever be a taboo subject and those who struggle in silence won't get the support they need. And of course it serves children no benefit whatever for society to alienate and ostracise those adults who are attracted to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 03:12 AM

I've just been looking online at various accounts of this latest scandal. The children's home involved, which allegedly sent young boys to 'parties' there, was used by all sorts of evil men, including a Roman Catholic priest called Father Tony McSweeney, who was arrested for child abuse. The ghastly thing is, I've actually been 'blessed' by this priest. I used sometimes to go to the Catholic mass at St George's in Sprowston, Norwich, and he often officiated. He was apparently very attached to adoring the Virgin Mary.(!!!) If you weren't a Catholic, you could still go up during distribution of the bread and have a blessing, where the priest puts his hand on your head. Do you know, I feel absolutely disgusted and horrified. Is there no limit to the sheer audacity and hypocrisy of these wicked men? His homilies were always very hardline and severe. The evil beast!
What also concerns me is the apparently widespread nature of this paedophilia. It's everywhere, they're everywhere. Why? What possible pleasure can there be in such ghastly stuff? I'm very upset.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 03:07 AM

But none of that is concrete evidence related to the case, Lizzie. It's just your interpretation of stuff you've read.

As for indigenous people, I respect them as much as I respect anyone else i.e. if I got to meet any I would judge them on the content of their characters. I don't see what they've got to do with Rolf Harris though.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 02:32 AM

why were all these powerful politicians and pop stars visiting this guest house?,
the pop star Vic Smith mentioned has apparantly taken out barbadian citizenship presumably to try and avoid extradition

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 06:22 PM

Upset, Shimmy?

His name is Chief Raoni, so please, do NOT disrespect him, nor disrespect the Mohawk Warrior Unity flag either.

Perhaps, if you HAD the respect of The Indigenous Peoples, we might get on a lot better. Sadly, all you want to do is take cheap shots at me.

And no, it wasn't 'evidence' at all. It was the words of women who claimed to have been abused. One placed him in a place he's never been traced to. One sold her story for $oodles before she even went to the police at all, lying to them when she did finally go. One got the name of a programme wholly wrong, and was out, date-wise, by about 5 YEARS in the date she claimed Rolf abused her...And finally, the last one stated her life had been totally ripped apart, that she'd felt dirty, used, abused, etc..had been forced by him to stay in a 10 year relationship due to her terror of him, but wrote in her diary, during the holiday where she alleges he first started to sexually abuse her, that she had a GREAT holiday, (!?!)...stating this again, to the defence lawyer (see video link above) ....And, despite being scared witless by him, she asked him after their affair had been ended, by Rolf, to give her £25,000 as a 'donation' for a bird sanctuary. He declined. Her boyfriend was with her, I believe...

So, she'd found a new boyfriend, despite her life being wrecked as it was.....and had returned to ask Rolf for money because he'd told her he'd help her if ever she needed help...(Nice for such a 'monster' to have said, really) Again, this is in the video link some posts above...

And now, sleep...perchance to dream.......

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 06:12 PM

Sorry, need to correct the above.

This should have read: "As to why didn't I present any evidence during the trial...well, Rolf Harris never abused me. I've never met him, nearly did, when he was due to come to my son's infant school with the Animal Hospital team..."

And not ".....Rolf Harris never abused as I've never met him", which is what I put. This, obviously, infers that HAD I met him, he would have abused me, and I do not, for a moment, think he would have.

Right, bed..to dream of a Mudcat Edit Button! ;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 06:11 PM

"Climate Change Denier, Shimmy? Is THAT what you think I am?"

Oh, for God's sake! Here's what I actually wrote:

"You REMIND me of all of those climate change deniers."

And you remind me of them because your opinions (on the Rolf Harris case) ARE NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE!!

Oh yes, and give my regards to Chief Hoojamaflip (has he got a flag?).

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Musket
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 06:09 PM

As hearsay is normally ruled inadmissible, it must have been evidence the jury heard.

{Yawn}

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

FRom Shimmy:

"So, Lizzie, you've gone on and on and on at great length about this case, giving your opinions ad nauseum. And, yeeesss, you are entitled to your opinion - before you start on that old chestnut. But you do know, don't you, that, without any evidence, your opinion is worthless? And if you have got any evidence pertinent to this case, why didn't you present it to the appropriate authorities at the appropriate time?...."


Well, your first sentence sums up *precisely* why I've been trying to FIND some evidence in the first place, as there was NO evidence presented during this trial, other than hearsay....as far as I can tell, with one person saying that she was abused by Rolf in a place he's never even BEEN to!

So, that's why I've found *their* opinions to be worthless too. When I've found out more from the Porstmouth paper, tomorrow, hopefully, I'll let you know.

As to why didn't I present any evidence during the trial...well, Rolf Harris never abused me, as I've never met him, nearly did, when he was due to come to my son's infant school with the Animal Hospital team, having to cancel at the last moment though, although the BBC did film the Christmas play which the children had done for the programme...

Had I known they were going to produce witnesses who said Rolf was somewhere he's never been and that was where he'd abused her, having never been there, I'd have phoned them up, asked them to get their ex-officer from Operation Yewtree OUT of 'Big Brother' and set him to work trying to unearth THE EVIDENCE for the trial...

For now though, I'm off to bed, as I'm very old and ancient these days and tired out....

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 05:56 PM

I've yet to see the video. I've found some photos, of Rolf and Vanessa sitting side by side on the bed, bizarrely, but she's holding his hand in one of them and he's lying beside her in the other. Very odd place for an interview to take place....

I'll phone the Portsmouth newspaper up tomorrow to ask them about the community centre story, as if he cannot be placed there, despite all the searching, I can only assume it's because he was *never* there in the first place, in which case, that story makes no sense....

Climate Change Denier, Shimmy? Is THAT what you think I am?

I went to London in June to meet up with Chief Raoni and Chief Megaron who'd come all the way over from their Rainforest on their 'SOS AMAZONIA' tour. I was part of the team, to a lesser degree than others though, who brought them to Europe. I was the one who corrected all the letters to Prince Charles, King Harald of Norway, Albert of Monaco, The Pope, Sting, etc. for those in the Planete Amazone team who worked their butts off doing what they did..They asked me to help, to thik of ideas etc....so I did. 12 hours on the coach, almost did me in, and National Express messed it all up too, failing to collect us at 9am, as their driver just decided NOT to pick up passengers from Torquay....got into London with just moments to spare, not the 3 hours I'd planned...but they laid on a taxi for me and I arrived just in time....Got a hug from Chief Raoni too, really was chuffed about that....What an incredible man he is, in his 80s, yet still out there trying to wake the world.

Not sure if you'll be able to see this. You'll need FB to open it, but the photo may be 'restricted', as it belongs to someone else. I can copy it though, if you want proof.

Chiefs Raoni and Megaron in London - I'm at the front, you can just see the white flower in my hair...

So, no, I'm most certainly not a Climate Change Denier. Check out my 'Support Chief Raoni' page on Facebook too, whilst you're at it.

I just don't accept things that don't sound or feel right, nor make any sense at times..and regardless of whether he ran his hands up Vanessa's leg or not, it still does not explain the story of him being in a community centre he'd never visited, nor have any links been found by anyone to ever show he was there.


I'm sure this video will find its' way to Youtube though and then, we can all see exactly what happened.

Odd though that there was actual EVIDENCE, FILMED evidence, yet STILL everyone kept so silent for decades....I believe she's said this was quite a while back now. She said that she felt no-one would believe her, yet there it was, on film apparently.


Oh, and to the usual 'guest' poster above who said this about me:

"...You spewed out another steream of abuse about a woman you don't like..."

No, I did not. I merely said 'don't get me started on Vanessa'....She has never been a woman I've taken to, nor had respect for, that's all. I know very little else about her other than the kind of programmes she appeared in when at the height of her 'fame', programmes which didn't impress me one bit.

However, I appreciate your words about me paint me in a way that gets others to think badly of me. Are you related to Sacha Wass at all? ;0)

It wasn't entered as evidence in court though, as the police didn't give the defence team enough time to research it, so it's been said.. That's odd too, as I believe they knew about this a couple of years back, (might be wrong about this) so the film would have been found almost immediately back then, wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 04:12 PM

So, Lizzie, you've gone on and on and on at great length about this case, giving your opinions ad nauseum. And, yeeesss, you are entitled to your opinion - before you start on that old chestnut. But you do know, don't you, that, without any evidence, your opinion is worthless? And if you have got any evidence pertinent to this case, why didn't you present it to the appropriate authorities at the appropriate time?

You remind me of all of those climate change deniers. They've got lots and lots of 'selective received wisdom' to support their preferred conclusion (that climate change isn't happening) but they've got no real hard evidence to support their cases. Thus, their opinions are worthless and they're NOT entitled to equal 'air-time' with real climate scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: selby
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 03:37 PM

:-))

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 03:25 PM

LOL, Keith. Not only will you sit in the naughty corner, you will NOT be allowed any cake for tea. Now sit up straight and behave yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 02:40 PM

Vic Smith, look again, that speculation is a few months old and the BBC confirmed it was not Cliff Richard. He may still be arrested, if other rumours are true, but not yet.

So the police have confirmed that video evidence corroborates Vanessa Feltz's story. Where does that leave you now, Lizzie? You spewed out another steream of abuse about a woman you don't like, but she is telling the truth. You said you would change your mind if video evidence of the incident was produced. Is Rolf Harris still completely innocent?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Musket
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 02:06 PM

This should be fun, if it weren't unsubstantiated bollocks.

We have people on Mudcat who reckon Christians are above that sort of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 01:54 PM

Yes, if any of the C***f rumours are true - be prepared for a truly bizarre & perverted alternative history
of 1960s showbiz, gangland, and Lords symbiotic relationships..

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: selby
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 01:50 PM

I am very very very sorry Eliza i got it wrong I just meant he was in prison.I will go and sit in the naughty corner
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 01:43 PM

Thanks for correcting "at her majesties pleasure..." I was seeing double images there.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Vic Smith
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 01:38 PM

Rumours on Facebook that the most recent arrest under Operation Yewtree is Cliff Richard.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 01:35 PM

'At her Majesty's Pleasure' is a specific term implying an indeterminate custodial sentence. Haris has been given a definite period of prison to serve, so it isn't At Her Majesty's Pleasure.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: selby
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 11:13 AM

If there where discrepancy's in the abused witness's statements surely it is up to the defendants barrister to raise and ridicule those inaccuracy's. If he/she has not done that then they must be incompetent. As I understand the legal system, the solicitors and barristers are not bothered about the crime they relish the fight against a worthy opponent. Unfortunately whatever the rights or wrongs the man has been found guilty by a jury so at the moment he is serving at her majesties pleasure. It will be interesting to see if the Attorney General considers the sentence inadequate.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 10:43 AM

So, the state of the modern 21st Century nation...

If the 'Jack the Ripper' Whitechapel serial murders were happening now,
and the culprit was suspected by police & media to be a prominent member of the royal family.
Would 'those' in power ensure he be brought to justice in full view of 'us' the public;
or still implement a top secret cover up ???

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 10:42 AM

pRESENTER VANESSA FELTZ has come in for a torrent of Twitter abuse after she claimed that she had been assaulted live on TV by Rolf Harris.

Feltz told The Sunday Express that she spoke to police after stories of Harris assaulting other women emerged, and that she would be prepared to appear in court.

Harris appeared with Feltz during the 'On The Bed' interview segment of Channel 4′s The Big Breakfast in May 1996.

She said that during the interview he moved his hand up her leg and:

    ..after a few seconds he had managed to get his hand inside the elastic of my knickers and I was absolutely staggered.

Police at Scotland Yard have viewed footage of the incident and verified Feltz's claim. She had previously referred to the incident in a newspaper column in 2012, but hadn't named the interviewee involved.

Now the presenter is being subjected to comments and 'jokes' based on her appearance.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 08:16 AM

good point, Jim.
the report has disappeared, fact,
an ex minister who had the power to make reports disappear, but at this moment in tine has not been tried or convicted,was allegedly visiting a house, which other people who have now been convicted of paedophilia were visiting.
the justice system is supposed to be there to protect everyone including the vulnerable, justice must be administered correctly , those who have influence and power whoever they are must not be above the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 07:52 AM

"Saville never will be."
An article in this morning's Sunday Times points out that Minster Geoffrey Dickins submitted a report to Parliament in 1983 implicating prominent people, including Saville, in pedophilia and child pornography.
It claimed that there was a 'pornography ring' operating among parliamentarians in Westminster.
The report "disappeared".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 07:49 AM

A bit difficult trying to discuss law with a woman who neither respects nor understands it.

A criminal is in prison. Result.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 14 - 07:43 AM

I am a little puzzled by the statements that the only evidence is the say so of other people. Surely that is the only evidence against Saville as well? As far as I can see the only difference between Saville and Harris is that Harris is a convicted pedophile. Saville never will be.

DtG

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

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

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

Last entry for today.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Questions over Diary Entries

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

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

Rubbish, Musket....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

do you have NO doubts yourself?

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

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

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

All this prompts me to ask some questions:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It takes a community to protect a child!

Cheers,

Andrez

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

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

DtG

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

Remember THIS?

Orkney Child Sex Abuse Scandal - ALL FALSE!

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


Now, read this...

NO evidence....


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Curiouser and Curiouser, eh?

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

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

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

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

No?

Well, you do now....

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

No?

Well, you do now?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that what you meant?

DtG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One nun dead!

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

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

this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is a very sobering thought.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a point of order for Q 's benefit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you might have missed something, Freda.

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

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

freda

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

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

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

So lotzaluv 2U any·old·how!...


X❤♥~Michael~♥❤X

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

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

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

===

From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 07:44 AM

It appears that Rolf Harris's crimes are merely the tip of a deeply sordid iceberg. If the truth finally emerges about the goings on, allegedly involving senior politicians and at least one squeaky clean pop star, at the Elm Guest House in Barnes, Rolf will seem like a bit part player in comparison. As long ago as the mid 1980s, I recall hearing the rumours about one former senior cabinet minister who was supposedly up to his neck in it. I hope the whole story does come out, but given the many years during which the establishment have apparently closed ranks, we may never know the whole story and the suspects who are still alive may never be brought to justice.

===

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

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

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

Worth reading the whole article:

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

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



The Horror of False Allegations


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

Witch Hunt...total Witch Hunt...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

So THAT is where I'm coming from.

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

Are there any "innocent" children left?

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

Does that answer your question?

What has it got to do with Rolf Harris anyway?

DtG

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

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

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

-Joe-

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 02:25 PM

I forgot to add that one applies to the Attorney General to complain about too-lenient sentences, not too-severe ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 02:24 PM

I'm not in any way religious, but..

"Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear."

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 02:21 PM

Q, I understand that the images he's viewed were difficult to assess, in that the ages of the girls/children/women in them were not easy to ascertain. If these extra alleged offences had been added to the initial accusations, the trial may have taken even longer to come to fruition, and knowledge of the viewing of images may have coloured the jury's judgment. I doubt if the application to the Attorney General will be successful, as the age of the man is a factor in the term allotted. Also, one would imagine the AG would hesitate before overturning a judge's decision unless there were very strong reasons to do so.
I've been present at quite a few Crown Court cases and I was always bemused by the mitigation part of the process. Defendants would plead that they had children, an aged mother, a good job, a disability etc. But one is led to wonder why they hadn't borne such things in mind when they considered breaking the law in the first place. I don't feel that Harris's sick wife or his own health are factors here.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 02:11 PM

I forgot to mention, I've just sent him a card...he's in Wandsworth Prison...and if anyone else wants to do so too, you need to put his date of birth on there, as he has no prisoner number as yet (not that folks will be able to find that number out, unless his family/friends put it out to the public.

His date of birth is:

30th March 1930

Wandsworth Prison
PO Box 757
Heathfield Road
Wandsworth
London
SW18 3HS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 02:08 PM

The prosecution lawyer was unbelievably nasty and deeply vitriolic towards Rolf Harris, especially over the Cambridge incident, which was NOT as she claimed it to be at all, please read my remarks about Sue Cook, above. However, she was also very clever. I also felt the judge was biased too. He should have stopped her at times, although she was using the oldest trick in the book, for once such words are out of a lawyer's mouth, that's it, they have reached the ears of the jury, regardless of what the judge says. However, he appeared to say nothing at all, as nothing was reported.

I post under my name as 'Guest', in the same way every time. I no longer want to be a full time member of Mudcat, nor have anyone send me messages here, as I've had some very unpleasant messages in the past and have NO wish to have that repeated. If someone wants to say something about me then put it where everyone can see it.

I'm just off to write to the Attorney General too, to tell him what I think of the sentence. Thanks for that information, Eliza.


My comment about 'guests' was 'anonymous' guests, or those who use a name for a thread, merely to abuse someone else. They should be named and shamed. It's always caused chaos and upset on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 02:00 PM

The images might indicate that the viewer has indecent thoughts, but they do not show that the viewer is guilty of indecent, prosecutable acts.

The preponderance of evidence is that he is guilty, the court case was based on evidence from believable witnesses.
The Judge's statement is worth reading-
news.com.au, July 5, 2014. "Rolf Harris sentencing; a transcript of Justice Nigel Sweeney's remarks. online.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 01:35 PM

It looks as if somebody (or persons) has sent a complaint to the Attorney General about the too-lenient sentence. Apparently it will initiate an investigation even if only one complainant registers their disapproval. There may also be an appeal of course.

When I started the first thread, I intended only to invite posters' reactions to the case, in the light of Harris's enormous popularity. For someone of my age and generation (and for many on here I'm sure) he was much loved and enjoyed as an entertainer. I know that my own opinion of him was knocked sideways and I felt tremendous shock, having actually met the man years ago. It also opens up discussion of abuse occurring decades ago and its continuing impact on victims, even into their adulthood, and the apparent tendency for famous people to abuse their popularity for their own evil pleasure. I did not intend this to develop into a series of personal attacks on anyone, or an orgy of vicious name-calling.
I have avoided I hope any retaliation or nastiness on my part, but I have to say I regret ever having started or taken part in this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 01:07 PM

Lizzie,

I so wish that these 'guests' who use the Guest Button to say such things, could be named and shamed in Mudcat.

You post as a 'guest', and there isn't a 'Guest Button'

"this Prosecution Bitch From Hell"

isn't a great start to any discussion in terms of having a reasonably intelligent debate, is it?

The images on his computer? These were found way back..and it's puzzled me for AGES as to why the police did not just prosecute him

Do you read anything of any validity? Try looking here:

"Faced with a choice of delaying a major trial, with the administrative chaos and attendant costs this would bring, or severing the charges, the judge had no option and the jury heard nothing about the images."

That's enough from me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 01:07 PM

You can't win, Q. Some hothead wants his precious words to be on the screen to revisit and feel powerful at having posted them. If they disappear, a new thread complaining about the jackboot moderator tactics appears.

Lizzie, you're welcome, but giving with one hand and taking with the other is one reason why there are so many critics. Try leaving out all of the pre-analysis of how you think people will respond when they're at their worst. Just name your topic, state your opinion, and leave the preemptive strikes out. Then moderators can remove the overt attacks by others. If you attack first, those responses are less likely to be removed.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 01:06 PM

Again the women, from prosecutor to victims, are "bitches from hell". As I said earlier, there is a reason many of us don't disclose. I am not going to have my truth judged by the likes of Lizzie Cornish. Richard, you're right: of course it continues to have impact and I expect it always will. But someone else referred to abuse destroying victims' lives. For some that's possibly true. I wouldn't give my abuser that power. I have a good life. If others were ever to accuse my abuser, would I come forward? I don't know. On the one hand, I would feel more secure and confident knowing I was not alone. On the other hand, why do I want to put myself into a position of being judged by vicious, bitter misogynists (of either sex), who would decide amongst themselves that I was only jumping on a bandwagon for attention/money? Screw them. People like Lizzie help the abusers to escape justice by making it even harder for victims to come forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 01:05 PM

The jury had a lot to consider and we do know what went on in there. They sat and decide he was guilty.

Juries aren't there to give entertainment tunesmith, they are there to deliberate on very serious matters under the direction but not interference of the judge. Openness can be demonstrated by the open court proceedings so anybody can consider what the jury considered.

If he has anything to say in his defence, he can always see if it amounts to grounds for appeal.

Three hours to decide an offence is both proportionate and par for the course where a defendant claims innocence. We can argue all day whether a custodial sentence was appropriate, whether he should have got a sentence that would have reflected had he committed the offences today and sent down for longer and we can argue what society has to gain incarcerating a man in his eighties. After all, there are countries in The EU such as Italy where his age would preclude prison.

However, to argue his innocence doesn't get anybody anywhere. He has been found guilty by the most fair system we have to date. Trial by jury.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 12:59 PM

I found Lizzie's first summary of contrary evidence in the closed thread interesting.
She stated her belief passionately and clearly. She did not deserve the vituperation that followed.
Will there be an appeal in the case?

This thread also is becoming childish.

SRS, those he said/didn't say arguments are infesting all threads that attempt serious content.
I would let the threads continue, but censor out all the stupid comment.

Of course, one, I am the best judge of what is worthy, and two, my time is too valuable to spend it on childish argument.

Seriously, SRS, I sympathise with you.

I just wish some of the repetitive yes/no contingent would fall of the edge of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 12:44 PM

lets get away from personalities.
what needs to happen is that even the very powerful, ex ministers etc, are brought to justice, we need to know why there has been a cover up and those people who have given orders for a cover up are also tried. everybody in society are supposed to be protected, yet it appears that paedophiles who were part of the establishment and who had power have been protected for too long, but vulnerable children have not been protected, what sort of an indictment of our society is that, in my opinion it reflects an unchristian approach,it reveals that the mentality of some people who have power have used their power in an abusive way, all of them including any who have ordered a cover up, should be brought to justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 12:43 PM

We don't know how the jury acted! But, we can speculate!
And, I'm speculating that 38 hrs is far too long for there have not to have been a number of jurers who had their "the beyond reasonable" doubts stance turned around.
    Indeed, why are't we privy to what went on in the jury room?
Talk about lack of transparency!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 12:31 PM

Sorry, should have read back further before I posted that.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 12:28 PM

As the other thread is still closed,the verdict : Five years and nine months

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 12:21 PM

Leveller, I'm so very sorry for what your poor Mum went through.

Right, well, first of all, apologies to Jeri for wrongly accusing her of closing the previous thread. Secondly, thanks to Maggie for doing what she did, but I would never have thought in a thousand years you'd do that, as you've said some pretty grotty things about me in the past.

Yes, I was getting concerned that the break-up of my marriage, of all things, was being used against me, in someone's desperation to paint me as darkly as possible, but I just try to battle on, regardless...However, thank you for being so thoughtful, Maggie, but I wish those posts had just been removed, as Eliza states above, rather than the entire thread closed down.

Also, I so wish that these 'guests' who use the Guest Button to say such things, could be named and shamed in Mudcat. That would solve a LOT of problems, surely?

Anyway, moving on......

Leveller, I'm very sorry for what happened to your mother-in-law. He was a terrible human being, for sure, one whose brain pattern was psychopathic and narcissistic too, I feel. He also had such a deeply unhealthy relationship with his mother. Keeping her to himself for 5 days after she died..and it doesn't bear thinking about what he may have been doing in that time. He said that those few days with her were amongst the best of his life, for she was finally 'all his'. I think we should add 'insane' to his 'brain pattern' too.

MtheGM, the woman who was 7 years old at the time stated Rolf abused her as she waited at the front of the queue for his autograph, whilst in a community centre in Portsmouth. He'd just finished singing some songs. NO connection to that community centre EVER having had Rolf Harris visit has EVER been found, not even by the Police, nor the Prosecution it would seem, but hey she just glazed over that part....Rolf denied being there.

I turn words into pictures instantly in my brain, maybe everyone else does too, I've no idea...but I read her statement, of how Rolf crouched down when he was doing her autograph, talking to her and putting his hands on her bottom, inside her knickers, touching her...doing this TWICE, the second time far more forcefully..and my mind goes "EH?????!!!!"

She was at the front of the queue, with others behind her, very close by, all of whom would, I've no doubt probably been looking directly AT Rolf Harris. So HOW did no-one notice????   I mean, seriously, SERIOUSLY, HOW do you put your hands inside someone knickers, surrounded by people so close you could probably reach out and touch them, whilst none of them notice?    And a 7 year old would squirm I've no doubt. WHERE were her parents?

But all this is irrelevant as Rolf has NEVER been found to have ever, EVER visited this community centre. He was a BIG star back then, had been singing, so she said, so perhaps tickets had been sold, etc...WHY was there NO report in the local papers? She couldn't even get the year right...Why was there no record in the community centre archives, in Rolf's manager's appointments books, his driver etc..????


CAMBRIDGE!

Ah, yes. According to the BBC this morning, THIS was what swayed the case. The woman who was then, 13 or 14, (none of them seem to recall dates or ages) was a waitress (very young for a waitress, but mayhap she was just helping out where no alcohol was being served)...and she was at the filming of the 'It's A Knockout' programme in Cambrdige, execpt, it wasn't called that at all, it was 'Star Games' which she got wrong, and she was also about 5 years out too...(5 years out????!!)

Rolf said he'd never been to Cambridge, not until very recently. A video had been found on Youtube of this particular programme, showing Rolf taking part. The prosecution lawyer then went APE-SHIT and labelled him a LIAR, saying he was *deliberately* try to lie his way out of his terrible deeds.

Unbeknown to this Prosecution Bitch From Hell, (I don't often use the 'bitch' word, but my god, does it suit her!) Rolf's old friend, Sue Cook, a famous TV presenter from around that time (back in the 70s this was) read this in the paper, in the trial updates and was so enraged she went to her Twitter page and commented. The next day, she was in Court, giving her evidence. She said that she too had also been part of filming that programme and, just like Rolf, had actually forgotten all about it. She also said she had no memory of it being in Cambridge either (it was on the outskirts of the city) telling how celebrities are so often just driven to venues, do the 'gig' whatever it might be, then are driven home again, or on to the next booked venue, often having NO idea where they even are.....

Cambridge Woman has already appeared on Breakfast TV, albeit with her voice dubbed over and her back to the camera, telling how her life has been ripped apart in the most awful way ever since that time, which is seared into her mind forver...(shame the date and the name of the programme had fallen right out though). I've NO idea if Cambridge Woman has been paid for her interview.

Tonya Lee...Now, she's ALREADY been paid for HER story, before she even went to the police!   Yes, Good Ol' Tonya has been telling her story for a while now, through tear stained eyes and perfect make up. She even hired an agent to get the most Loadsa Money she possibly could...$60,000 was to become hers, but so far, she's only made $28,000 apparently, as the nasty wicked agent still has to pay her more..and she had to give half the money to her even more nasty and wicked former boyfriend, Fian McDaid, to jolly well make him go away. Fian The Villain, has said she made it all up to pay her debts off. She says he beat her up and has served time for this.

Now, Australia Woman, who is Tonya, came to London when she was just 13 or 14 or 15 years old, depending on which way the wind is blowing. She said she became anorexic because of Rolf inviting her to sit on his lap whilst writhing around as she did so. He then waited for her after she'd gone to the toilet, in shock, opening the door to the pub corridor, to find him outside, where he then, in full view of anyone who may have been coming or going to those toilets, proceeded to sexually abuse her....She did, however, remember, when reminded by the Defence, that actually, the whole 'eating disorder' thing had started BEFORE she ever met Rolf, because other members of her *ACTING* troupe (note that word, 'acting') hated British food and so had barely eaten a thing, many of them losing a lot of weight during their time over here...

What a sillybilly, eh?

And finally, we come to BindiFriend Woman.....

Now, she claims that Rolf had been grooming her since she was 13. He'd said 'sexual' things to her such as, "You look lovely in that" when she was wearing her flesh coloured bikini on holiday with Bindi. Who knew that 'lovely' is apparently a sexual term these days, if you use it towards a young girl...so, all grandad's, WATCH OUT!

She also claims he did all sorts of sexual things to her whilst his daughter was in the next bed...that he ruined her life, had a 'hold over her'..but she also managed to get in, for what reason I have NO idea, that he has a 'very, very small penis' (WHY would she come out with saying such a thing?)..and he apparently had this 'hold' over for ten YEARS, during which, she became an alcoholic, although, Bindi, as I recall, said she had already been experimenting with drink a lot earlier in her life....Bindi also stated that she felt her friend truly loved her father...that was when she'd got over the shock of it all..

As I stated in the other thread, in case you missed it, MtheGM, my mother had an affair with my brother's best friend. I was 14 at the time, my brother therefore was 17 and his friend, a little older than him, was around 19. Shit happens in families. My mother was also around 18 when she met my father, who was 17 years older than Mum...Dad loved Mum to the end of his days. They stayed together, the 'boyfriend' became part of the family...It was all kinda weird and horrid for a while, but we learn to get through these things...

Keep up and make more coffee! ;0)

So, very little surprises me at all in life...and it's perhaps what's made me into The Pink Panther, searching for 'the other side' of things, the reasons why, etc....

Rolf's story was that he ended the affair. She then got very upset, said she'd always hated him etc.etc....and she asked him for £25,000 saying she and her brother would go to the media if he didn't pay. He didn't pay. This is when he wrote the letter to her father, to apologize for having assumed she'd loved him and that their relationship had been built on love and respect....He was an old friend of Rolf's..and Rolf said he hated himself for what he'd done, that he must have read all the signs wrongly etc....and that he hated this part of him.

Which part? Well, most will think he's talking 'children' here, but I think he meant just women in general, that he had a high sex drive and a need to be loved by many women, perhaps..admired....

Even now, at 84, he's still a good looking man, takes excellent care of himself....

The images on his computer? These were found way back..and it's puzzled me for AGES as to why the police did not just prosecute him there and then, if they were as bad as we're now being led to believe. They did so with Pete Townshend, after all, didn't they?

The Prosecution Bitch From Hell said today that although the sites he'd visited claimed to be adult porn sites, the people on them being 18 and over, the girls looked a lot younger, more like 13, and that is the place she was coming from.

Rolf's lawyers had stopped this being given as evidence because they claimed they were from an adult site/sites....

I have NO idea....nor why he would be viewing them...other than he's obviously been a highly sexed man in his past, maybe still is, despite his age, and also, he's an artist, who draws many female nudes.....Many artists are a little off the wall, have been throughout history....but does this make them perverts? Some have been, no doubt, that whole brain pattern/hormone thing again, but it does not make them all paedophiles....

Don't get me wrong, I'd kill any man or woman who harmed my children, and I've NO time at all for paedophiles, but this trial has set my teeth on edge from the start, not just because I, like so many others, love Rolf and have done for decades, but because there is NO evidence at all.....

Even the porn sites...I mean how many men in here would put their hands up to taking a sneaky look now and then? It's NOT a side of the internet I like, I actually loathe it, for I think it's altered the minds of many folks and not for the better...many YOUNG folks too, VERY young folks at times who know how to view these 'orrible sites....

I've seen the most foul and festering outpouring of vileness from the British Press, one, The Mirror, even asking how his wife could live with herself knowing she could not keep him sexually fulfilled enough to stop him from going out and harming children!! I kid you not!!! A link to that article is in the other thread....

Now, even to the end, he's being made out to be some evil bastard, with the last moment release of the 'computer images' details today, despite them having had this info since 2012, despite the prosecution Bitch From Hell using it in the pre-trial summing up, which you have to search for, but it's there...As mentioned above, it was denied being used in court, due to the *adult* nature of the sites, not the *child* nature....

So, the end of this horror story is that his fortune will be carved up and given to his 'victims' (there will be LOADSA NEW ONES, trust me) and the police in the UK and Oz, who have been dealing with this...leaving barely anything I expect, for his family in future years, bearing in mind he has a daughter and grandson.   They've all been put through hell by Operation Yewtree and it will never leave them. Rolf can no longer care for his elderly wife and they'll probably die apart after 56 years together, albeit in a somewhat unusual marriage....but they stayed the course..and Alwen stayed beside him to the very end, as did Bindi, his daughter...

I just feel achingly, desperately sad about it all....and angry that the police even let this come to trial in the first place, when the evidence wasn't there at all...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 12:13 PM

No, there must have been some jury members who took a lot of convincing of Rolf's guilt. i.e. they were probably "worn down" by other jury members.

Were you there? No. So stop making a fantasy up please.

the first charge they considered, then that would bear heavily on how they approached the other charges

Have you ever been a member of a jury? Thought not.

Juries are always instructed to treat each charge individually.

Tool

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 12:08 PM

Juries don't have to reach a verdict! it's quite possible and admissible for a jury to be 'hung', because they can't agree. Why, then, would jurors who thought he was innocent have to be 'worn down' by those who thought he was guilty?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 11:34 AM

I would still maintain that 3 hrs per charge is a long time!
After all, if the jury believed Rolf lied about the first charge they considered, then that would bear heavily on how they approached the other charges i.e they would have started with fact that they believed Rolf was a liar!
And, of course, these trials are very much about " he said, she said".

No, there must have been some jury members who took a lot of convincing of Rolf's guilt. i.e. they were probably "worn down" by other jury members.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 11:08 AM

Dave and Raggytash,

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully with you in trying to protect the wrongly accused. If I were accused, of say rape, I'd certainly want to keep my anonymity.

Even after being acquitted there would always the 'no smoke without fire' gossips, and I'd probably never completely be trusted by some.

However, I can't see how it could ever really work.

"keep the courtrooms free of the media"

"simply curtail the media's "right" to publish accounts until AFTER the trial has been concluded

are easy things to say, but practically?

Anyway, in 2014, who are the media?

Unrelated, but worth mentioning, I think:

Do you recall Spycatcher back in 1987? The British government tried to ban it with 'gag orders' and 'contempt of court' charges. They failed.

And this was before the web. It's laughable to look back on, as now, if I was interested, I'd just look on an overseas site.

Now, with Facebook, Twitter, Smartphones etc. how on earth do you expect to stop someone taking a picture of Harris arriving at court during his trial and propagating it around the world?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 11:08 AM

I find, in Lizzies opening diatribe . . .

There is that, Dave. Absence doesn't make the heart grow fonder if you come back with a huge chip on your shoulder.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:50 AM

"The censorship of material produced by convicted offendors is a separate matter. Should we pretend that people like Harris and Saville haed no part in late 20th century culture?"




Well, I am not going to stop enjoying Alice Coopers cover of "Sun Arise".
Or the best of Gary Glitter's greatest hits.

Even if I need to resort to only ever listening on headphones,
in case pea brained vigilante neighbours or passers-by hear faint sounds through our front bay window
and decide to post petrol soaked flaming dog shit through our letterbox...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:48 AM

Stilly river sage, thanks for closing the previous thread,imo it need to be closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:47 AM

I'm not convinced that the ad hominem attacks are all one way. Sorry, Stilly, but people are only human. If they are attacked, they will defend themselves. Going back to the first thread I find, in Lizzies opening diatribe But fuck it, you all carry on believing whatever they tell you to believe and never step back to question a damn thing... and, in this one I'll leave you all to your 'Hang The Bastards!' parties.........

If those are not "arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic" I don't know what is. OK, so we are grown ups and should know better but when someone attacks over and over and over again something gives.

Anyway, apologies if I seemed to be punishing a good deed.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Claire M
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:31 AM

Hiya! Why isn't it too bad inside?? It should be!

It's very sad. Mum used to break into RH's Pavlova song when she made 1. He used to sing it like this.
( the start anyway)
this
I was only small when I 1st heard it , now @ 31 it still cracks me up. Is that wrong??

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:31 AM

Eliza, 'Justice should be seen to be done'

Agreed, but why should the accused be tried by media before the jury returns it's verdict? By all means have trials that are open and auditable but to keep the accusers identity secret while that of the accused is emblazoned across the airwaves just seems unfair. Well, to me anyway. But like I said to Ed, I am not clever enough to propose a solution. Maybe keep the courtrooms free of the media and impose sanctions on any publishing details?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:27 AM

ad ho·mi·nem
/ad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
1. (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic. ; adjective: ad hominem
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
2. relating to or associated with a particular person.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

I closed the last thread because it had reduced to a he said/she said series of running ad hominem attacks against Lizzie. It seems no good deed goes unpunished, here is Lizzie starting another thread on the same topic so more people can badger her. The topic was Rolf Harris, so why on earth is Lizzie's married life coming into this?

Resume your conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 10:02 AM

Judges are always harsher on the convicted who show no remorse. If you are innocent, how can you and why should you show remorse; by doing so you would admit your guilt.
If I'm ever arrested for 'inappropriately' (the bull shitters' word)touching a girl I've never met in a place I've never been to, I think I'll opt for trial by battle.
One question to ask yourself: a boy goes to boarding school and is touched 'inappropriately' by a master. The same school practices corporal punishment and the boys are forced to play rugby and box. Leaving aside our current prejudices and obsessions, where might the real, lasting harm come from?
Remember Rolf Harris isn't Ian Brady.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:43 AM

Ed, we simply have to curtail the media's "right" to publish accounts until AFTER the trial has been concluded. Then by all means vilify the guilty (if you must) but not before a JURY, and not the media, has found them GUILTY.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:40 AM

I believe that all court cases should be in full public view unless national security is threatened. Otherwise you have secret goings-on, and it's in all our interest to have everything out in the open. 'Justice should be seen to be done' is IMO a wise ideal.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:40 AM

I think that 3 years comuunity service should have been added to his sentence, I realise that my next comment might be considered cranky, but if people want revenge and to see the convicted person humiliated, why are the stocks not re introduced for convicted paedophiles, a cheap way for people to humiliate the abuser and gain revenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:38 AM

5 years 9 months.

"That doesn't seem long enough" - I bet that's not what his victims said.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:34 AM

So how would that work, Dave?

I dunno, Ed. I'm not that clever! I should clarify that I mean only in this type of case. How do they manage to keep the identity of some victims secret yet not the accused?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:33 AM

Ah, GSS, that's something I never could sort out in my head. After visiting prisoners and getting some insight into prison life, I used to ask myself all the same questions that you just did. I certainly don't think it's much of a deterrent. And I'm afraid I didn't see much reform going on. With regard to violent offenders, robbers, burglars, abusers etc, it does keep them off the streets, but they're inevitably let out later, so the brief 'holiday' for the rest of us will be over. It isn't fashionable or PC to mention the word 'punishment' but the loss of liberty is certainly that. And the victims of any crime have the right to see the perpetrator punished. I asked many prison officers what they thought prison was for, and most had no firm answer, except as a punitive course of action. They were too savvy to think that any reform took place. Recidivism is sky high.
Harris will go first to an Induction Wing or Unit. He'll be given his prison clothes, inmate number, phone card, bedlinen and a towel and shown to his cell. He'll be visited by the prison Chaplain and the Governor. He'll be put on suicide watch for about a week. He'll be allowed one family visit on the Convicted Wing, then he'll be transferred probably as I said to an open prison, where visits are monthly. He'll most likely be encouraged to continue with his art, and even give lessons to other inmates. As a convicted sex-offender, he'll be 'on the numbers', which means kept away from other types of offenders. But nowadays, they're experimenting with integrating all inmates. A bit risky, as someone may try to attack him. It isn't too bad inside; the worst thing is the other folk in there - they can be absolutely ghastly and make one's life a misery.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:30 AM

The censorship of material produced by convicted offendors is a separate matter. Should we pretend that people like Harris and Saville haed no part in late 20th century culture?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:29 AM

Punishment is rarely a deterrent, Dick. Not many people commit crimes believing that they will be caught! Stop people committing the same crimes? Yes, I think so. But it should be a combination of restricting their freedom to do so and a program of rehabilitation if possible. In the Harris case it may be pointless on both scores but,to be fair, the justice system has to treat everyone even-handedly. Then we get vengeance and compensation. I think I said in the other thread that recompense must be made to the victims but on the vengeance side I am, thankfully, not in a position to comment.

Complicated issue and thanks for re-addressing it.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:24 AM

I do not believe that we should know the identity of the accused before the verdict.

So how would that work, Dave? All trials behind closed doors? No public galleries? No friends or relatives of the defendant or the alleged victim allowed to observe? Surely a degree of openness helps ensure fairness.

Besides, the practicalities of managing to get all the protagonists in and out of court every day without anyone noticing would present a logistical nightmare.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:19 AM

Rolf Harris did indeed record Fijian Girl. I well remember it on the radio, and the lines '...the wilting frangipani blossoms drift away...' always struck me as rather poignant. It's on one of those 'Best of Rolf Harris' discs. How many lovely, haunting and funny songs he sang! So so shocking it's come to this.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:19 AM

I have to ask myself what is the point of prison sentences, if it is to stop the miscreant from performing the crime again, then this is a pointless sentence, if it is to stop others performing the same crime, will it be effective?
if it is to satisfy those people including myself who are disgusted by predatory abuse, then we will feel better, if it it is for the victims to feel that they have at last been listened and have got some partial justice then it will partly achieve its purpose, the problem in my opinion is that no amount of prison sentences or money can compensate for being abused, for a child to have innocence and the rest of their life spoiled, how can this be compensated for?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:07 AM

The justice system, flawed as it may be, is the best we can do. It is right in the vast majority of cases and I suspect that far more criminals get away with it because of the flawed system than innocent people get punished by it. I have no statistics to back this up but on the basis of the number of scumbags you see walking out of court with a grin it seems a fair hypothesis. However, they have been found innocent and it is right that they should be freed. Just as if someone is found guilty they should be punished.

An analogy can be found in the moderation system here. It may be flawed, but it is the best we have. If you live here, you must live with the system!

Sad thing is that on some scores, Lizzie is right. The media circus involved should be removed from the justice system. I do not believe that we should know the identity of the accused before the verdict. There is nothing of 'the public interest' in it. It is only in the interests of the media moguls. Unfortunately, Lizzie, with her inimitable style has once again cuckolded a good argument. If the judgement against Harris is wrong then so could the one against Andy Coulson. I do not see Lizzie standing up for him though. Why is that?

Well, rhetorical question I suppose. What is the point...

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Jack Campin
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:06 AM

(fearing the worst) I took my remix of Fijian Girl down off Soundcloud over a year ago. Big deal, I know, but this one guts us all hollow. Isa lei, isa lei...

"Isa lei" is a Fijian folksong - not sure which version I first heard back in the late 50s, maybe Inia Te Wiata, but definitely not Rolf Harris and it was news to me that he'd ever covered it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 09:01 AM

It behooves us to keep some distance from what the media and public spokespersons tell us. The case has several distinct aspects:

• What exactly happened? (Since we do not know, we may need hypotheses like "Assuming witness X told the truth ...")
• Did the jury etc. do their duty?
• What are our personal moral conclusions?
• What are our emotional relations to celebrities?

The last point seems particularly pertinent for fans of performing arts who love to shout "Hosianna!" or "Crucify!" at their idols. Real life is complicated, particularly when related to sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:59 AM

Not 'nan', 'an'! And not 'our' but 'out'. Have just got back from my little cleaning job, and my fingers are as stiff as sticks! Nearly dropped my buttered crumpet. Need my afternoon nap.

I agree with everything that has been said above about people who've been abused suffering in silence because they fear being disbelieved, or hurting members of the family etc. And just because other molestations go unpunished, it doesn't logically follow that one should therefore disregard all the instances that come before the Courts. I'm sure that all verdicts are arrived at as being 'beyond reasonable doubt', and as we have seen, not all cases are so proved. One either subscribes to our judicial system or endures anarchy.

The total sentence could have been as high as 14yrs, so 5yrs 9mnths is much reduced, probably with regard to Harris's age. He has the right of appeal of course, but that usually demands either new evidence in his defence, or an accusation of a miscarriage of justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:51 AM

Tunesmith says,

Well, I am a bit suspicious! Why, for instance, did it take the jury a week to come up with it's verdict?
Surely, that indicates that his guilt wasn't that straightforward in the minds of some of the jury.
Also, these images found on Rolf's computer. Rather timely!

Erm, the jury reached their verdicts after less than 38 hours for 12 charges, so just over 3 hours per charge. Does that seem excessive?

Also the images on his computer were found in 2012.

Try and get some facts right before you do a 'Lizzie'

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:47 AM

I see that Harris has been sentenced to five years and nine months. He's been taken to Wandsworth prison, but probably won't serve his sentence there. I expect he'll go to nan open prison such as Hollesley Bay. Apparently he should be our in three years' time.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:37 AM

The convicted criminal is on his way from the court to begin his five and a bit year sentence in prison.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Vic Smith
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:36 AM

Shane on you, Lizzie. You awful, awful woman.
Poor old Shane! He has done nothing wrong. What has he done to deserve Lizzie?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Mr Red
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:32 AM

History is written by the victors.
And the victors are the ones with the power. That is often the ones with the money.
However the state and its voters have more collective money and power.

This has really been triggered by the Savile scandal. It takes a certain threshold. The pity is that in many cases people knew about Savile and Harris but how do you spread the word in the face of slander & libel litigation? Communication! Farcebook is no good, people will say anything there, and always do.

I just hope that the puritanical zeal that is currently swamping our culture does not reach the excesses that saw a pediatrician seriously harrassed 20 years ago because there are vigilantes who can't spell pedophile.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:32 AM

Once upon a time I thought that we were needlessly nasty to MLC - but I realised that I was wrong. Time has proven her to be totally irrational.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 08:12 AM

Lizzie, when any of us take time to advise you on the positive pragmatic benefits of structuring your arguements
as briefly and concisely to the point as possible,

[ie: the simple established time proven basic tenets of 'effective communication';
the foundations of any form of effective public discourse, journalism, media reporting, campaigning activism, etc]

this is constructive advice offered out of friendly concern for you.
Not any form of patronising attack, negative criticism, or insult.

Some of us still have remnants of respect and admiration for you, which you are sadly eroding
as you constantly flagrantly & arrogantly dismiss any attempts to help you restrain the worst self-destructive excesses
of your most self indulgent egotistical diatribes.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 07:53 AM

For future reference:

BS: Rolf Harris Found Guilty of 12 Offences

http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=154892&messages=132

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 07:44 AM

It appears that Rolf Harris's crimes are merely the tip of a deeply sordid iceberg. If the truth finally emerges about the goings on, allegedly involving senior politicians and at least one squeaky clean pop star, at the Elm Guest House in Barnes, Rolf will seem like a bit part player in comparison. As long ago as the mid 1980s, I recall hearing the rumours about one former senior cabinet minister who was supposedly up to his neck in it. I hope the whole story does come out, but given the many years during which the establishment have apparently closed ranks, we may never know the whole story and the suspects who are still alive may never be brought to justice.

In the meantime, I'm glad we have Yewtree. It could be argued that it's too little too late, but victims of sexual abuse need closure, and I''m saddened to see that some people continue to promote what is essentially a pro-abuser, anti-victim mentality that echoes the cover ups and excuses of the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 07:44 AM

Well, I am a bit suspicious! Why, for instance, did it take the jury a week to come up with it's verdict?
Surely, that indicates that his guilt wasn't that straightforward in the minds of some of the jury.
Also, these images found on Rolf's computer. Rather timely!
We know the police sometimes "bend" the facts to suit their case ( Hillsborough and plebgate, come to mind).
Again, I am rather suspicious about aspects of this case.
The other thing that bothers me about these "historic crimes" is how come none of those teachers that belted the living daylights out of me 50 odd years ago aren't being held accountable!
Also, the mental cruelty that I suffered, as a child, at the hands of Catholic zealots will never be investigated by Yewtree!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,semi Lizzie supporter
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 07:27 AM

Just a simple repost of something I contributed in a previous thread:

"Subject: RE: Why Do Musicians Work For Nothing?
From: GUEST,
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 11:03 AM

Biggest prolem with Lizzie is that she can be such a relentlessly obnoxious bore.

Which is a shame, because sometimes she proves capable of revealing a very incisive eloquent talent
for promoting positive valid arguements
from an alternative or unpopular standpoint.

Unfortunately, she is her own worse enemy, constantly undermining her credibility & reputation
with abject streams of unrestrained self indulgent wrong headed drivel.



None of us can sustain a life/persona as rejected martyrs and victims
for such a length of time, it's not healthy..."

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 07:25 AM

I am TOTALLY with Eliza on this.


> I was enjoying the viewpoints put forward by a wide variety of posters, and the different angles being considered. Rather than shut the whole thing down, might it not have been better to remove any posts considered offensive or unacceptable, so that those remaining could continue their discussion?

> Don't … chuck the baby out with the bathwater in this way [but just] remove unacceptable material and the thread continues.

> One can scroll down (sometimes for several lines!) until these posts come to an end, ignore them and continue as usual. To bar the rest from carrying on the interesting discourse is a bit irritating.


More than "a bit". It would be great if everybody could please stop responding to other people's messages and stick to the original topic, which started out as an intelligent exchange of views & experience regarding this sorry case. Just let those individuals talk to themselves - that type of visual isolation really does speak volumes, believe me.

Mudcat needs as much constructive input as it can get - it's been so decimated by the grim reaper and those choosing to leave (not to mention competition from other social media) that it should nurture all the good content it can muster, not zap it. The extended-conversation and archive aspects are one of this forum's great strengths. But the wholesale truncation of perfectly worthwhile threads just discourages us from bothering to put in the effort. (Facebook comments make a mayfly look long-lived, and it's nigh unto impossible to find anything again later. Also their visibility is generally limited to one's Friends so not everyone even sees it.)

Is there ANY chance of re-opening Eliza's thread, and - in Mod's big red letters - instructing everybody to ignore personal opinions which they disagree with, perhaps on pain of deletion? And combine it with this one, which does also offer some good points?

#whistlinginthewind

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 07:25 AM

I don't think Lizzie thinks the jury could have acquitted Mr Harris, but that there is something very wrong about how these cases are handled.....there is something prurient about today's society.
We seem to be working in two different time frames, if all the "groupies" of the sixties came forward to claim sexual abuse, the criminal justice system would implode.



The abuse of children, if proven, is indefensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: theleveller
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 07:00 AM

I'm a fairly infrequent visitor to Mudcat these days and I haven't read all that you posted on the other thread, Lizzie, but I'd just like to make a couple of points. Firstly, you either believe in the trial by jury system or you don't. True, sometimes mistakes are made, but if you think they made the wrong decision in the case of Rolf Harris, does that not throw into question their decisions in the cases of Bill Roache, Michael Le Vell and Dave Lee Travis? You can't have it both ways. Secondly, is it not a good thing that, finally, women abused by 'celebrities' are coming forward? I don't know whether you're claiming that Savile was wrongly accused but, if so, you're wrong. 65 years ago my mother-in-law, at the age of 17, was raped by Savile. She was too ashamed to tell anyone at the time, or later, until after the death of her husband because she didn't want him to know. So she had to live with this for much of her life. Only now, when the truth is emerging, can she feel some catharsis. How many more women must feel the seem?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 06:49 AM

Just read the final victim submissions before sentencing. Can't help feeling that Lizzie has made up her mind without actually reading any of the reports or background. The best Harris could maintain at his trial was that he was that sort of touchy-feely person, & didn't remember ever being in Cambridge [till shown a video of him there]. He has made no real attempt to deny the actual charges. It is all, as I remarked several times on the original thread, all too horribly sad for words; but the jury's findings seem quite unassailable.

One knows Lizzie: she means well; likes to think the best of people; can often be prolix & repetitive and lacking in an edit button: but much of what she says is often to the point if one seeks the nugget of truth among all the verbiage.

But not here. Honestly don't know what can have got into you this time Lizzie...!

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 06:46 AM

I am acquainted with people who suffered sexual abuse (one said to me "I've been sexually active since the age of 3, not by choice"). She did not wear her heart on her sleeve about it, and until you knew her well I think no-one would have guessed the facts - but with the benefit of disclosure and hindsight, I think it was obvious it created difficulties for her.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 06:09 AM

The Guardian today reports that RH's computer had been used for viewing pornographic images of girls as young as 13, but that the charges relating to this were separated from those of which he has been found guilty. It seems that a decision on whether to prosecute is still pending, IIUC.

Aren't you starting to feel even slightly silly, Lizzie?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 06:09 AM

Operation Yewtree is not tearing this country apart. As someone who suffered sexual abuse as a child, and who has never reported it to any authority, I am heartened to see so many people getting closure in adulthood. To be clear, the two things that prevent me from formally disclosing are fear of what this would do to my family, and the kind of suspicion and mistrust evidenced by Lizzie. I would rather keep my truth private than to have the abuse I suffered compounded by hysterical women-hating crap. For the record, not going public does not mean never disclosing. Those closest to me know what happened. The fact that Rolf Harris's victims never publicly accused him doesn't mean they never told anyone, or suddenly found themselves traumatised in adulthood. Plenty of people do talk about it to a few people they trust. But those who don't are no less trustworthy, and their pain is no less real. Shane on you, Lizzie. You awful, awful woman.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 05:57 AM

Just junked my Rolf Harris collection in dismay. The end of our nation's innocence? The end of mine certainly! I've even taken the batteries out of my Stylophone as a measure of my disillusionment, though (fearing the worst) I took my remix of Fijian Girl down off Soundcloud over a year ago. Big deal, I know, but this one guts us all hollow. Isa lei, isa lei...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 05:36 AM

I tend to sympatise with your POV Lizzie, but must admit your posts have been pretty "colourful" and confrontational.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 04:39 AM

Perhaps the mods closed the thread, LIZZIE (are you listening?) because it was getting silly!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,TT
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 04:38 AM

It's really very simple. Lizzie wasn't at the trial. Lizzie doesn't believe what she reads in the media. Lizzie 'knows' by some mysterious sense not granted to the rest of us that Rolf Harris is innocent and all the women who complained are lying. Any attempt to point out errors of fact in her posts is greeted the written equivalent of one of those slightly disturbing people who stand in the street ranting. For what it's worth, I was surprised by the verdict, but I was not in court, have not read a court report and can only use what I know from the media to make judgement, and I accept that media reports are not adequate for this purpose. (And by the way, Lizzie, if I don't respond to your future posts on this thread, it's because I won't be in range of a computer for the next few days.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 04:35 AM

Indeed they don't, Musket. But one can scroll down (sometimes for several lines!) until these posts come to an end, ignore them and continue as usual. To bar the rest from carrying on the interesting discourse is a bit irritating.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 04:16 AM

They don't do hanging sentences these days..

On a serious note, the person who spoilt the thread is the one starting this thread to complain about it. With her spurious nonsense here, you can see exactly how she isn't fit to be let loose on public forums.

That said, the moderation these days is getting unpredictable and often makes the reading of a thread look as if decent people have no answer to the more nasty elements of society who spew their hatred and bigotry on these pages in the name of free speech.

Ironic that they also manage to stifle those who don't let them get away with it.

That wasn't about Lizzie Cornish though. Her posts just don't make any sense whatsoever...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 04:02 AM

As the OP, I'm rather annoyed that (as with several threads on Mudcat) certain people (or person) have spoilt it for the rest. I was enjoying the viewpoints put forward by a wide variety of posters, and the different angles being considered. Rather than shut the whole thing down, might it not have been better to remove any posts considered offensive or unacceptable, so that those remaining could continue their discussion? On other forums I dip into, the moderators don't seem to chuck the baby out with the bathwater in this way. They remove unacceptable material and the thread continues. Very disappointing, especially as the thread is left hanging in the air as we await Harris's sentencing today.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 03:55 AM

I was actually staggered that so many in Mudcat were going along with what they're being told by the press

No, so many have gone along with the findings of the Jury. If there is an appeal and it is upheld we will also go along with that.

they will be partying today when Rolf is given his sentence

Again no. There has been no indication that anyone is happy about the situation. You are reading what you believe into the posts, not what is actually there. Most people have said they are shocked and saddened.

I think you are out of line saying what you do about the Mudcat members and it's moderation team. The only person who can see these things seems to be you, Lizzie. Maybe you are just out of step with the rest. Nothing wrong with that but would you not be happier in a forum that has members with views more in line with your own? Maybe, when you say you are going to leave you should really do it.

Not that I believe for a single minute that you will.

Good luck and, hopefully, goodbye.

DtG

Subject: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Jul 14 - 03:24 AM

Jeri, I can only assume you closed the thread on Rolf Harris down?

I'm not sure why, other than a usual comment aimed at me was in there.
I know you don't like me, Jeri, that's been obvious for many years now, BUT, in case you don't know, the Operation Yewtree trials are tearing this country apart at present and there is a LOT to be said about what is going on.

I DARED to have a different opinion to everyone else in that thread, and for that you've CLOSED the thread down?   

Yes, when I'm passionate about something, I will write a lot about that subject, because I research it and try my best to get others to open their closed down minds about things...

I also endure all the bullshit aimed at me, which is always done by the same people...Yet, you barely EVER say a word to, or about, those people, many of whom are very vindictive towards me.

I found the whole business of Rolf Harris suddenly being turned into an evil, foul, putrid man, equal to Savile in every way, abhorrent, and I was actually staggered that so many in Mudcat were going along with what they're being told by the press, as I thought they had somewhat more intelligent minds....

I realize I was obviously wrong and they will be partying today when Rolf is given his sentence....

I feel despair over my species.....

I feel despair that a former Operation Yewtree Officer was on Big Brother, for WHERE is the INTEGRITY of such a man if he does such a thing? These officers are tearing apart the lives of many innocent people and yet, they themselves are appearing on smutty/pornographic/dumbeddown bullshit TV programmes????????

Something is VERY Rotten in The State of Britain, as it is in Mudcat, which is these days, sadly, ruled by Mods who have personal likes and dislikes of various posters, to the point where Free Speech is curtailed, over and over....

I know remember why I left Mudcat for so long......

I'll leave you all to your 'Hang The Bastards!' parties.........