GUILTY UK - Rolf Harris for molesting underage girls, child *advertiser censored*, 2013

[wfgodot]

If Rev. Charles L. Dodgson - Lewis Carroll - were alive today he may have had to write 'Alice' from prison, based on the perceived nature of more than a few of his photographs using very young girls as models.

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[SapphireSteel]

There were three women interviewed, AFAIK. One of them was here in Aus, who claimed to have witnessed Rolf abusing an underage girl back in the 70's or something. Apparently, no charges have come from her statements. Basically, the police walked away from that one, as her claims weren't believable. I WILL link a reference for that, when I can find it again. It was in MSM.

The guy has been working with children for over 60 years - he was even a school teacher.

Based on this, there should be AT LEAST 60 accusers/victims, and that's being conservative, one per year - most pedophiles abuse thousands over their lifetimes.

So where are they all?

Where was all the suspicion when he was awarded an OBE, an MBE, then a CBE, and all the other honours he has received? He had to be recommended for those honours, you don't just get them for being a great guy.

Jimmy Saville had rumours around him for years, like Michael Jackson, like Gary Glitter. Those guys appeared creepy too, in hindsight.

Rolf's reputation is (was) spotless. 60 years of spotless.

:cow:

 

[Flinders]

If Rev. Charles L. Dodgson - Lewis Carroll - were alive today he may have had to write 'Alice' from prison, based on the perceived nature of more than a few of his photographs using very young girls as models.

Curiouser and curiouser.

He also had an emotional attachment to the young girls according to this...

We cannot know to what extent sexual urges lay behind Charles's preference for drawing and photographing children in the nude. He contended the preference was entirely aesthetic. But given his emotional attachment to children as well as his aesthetic appreciation of their forms, his assertion that his interest was strictly artistic is naïve. He probably felt more than he dared acknowledge, even to himself.

Cohen notes that Dodgson "apparently convinced many of his friends that his attachment to the nude female child form was free of any eroticism", but adds that "later generations look beneath the surface" (p. 229).

Morton N. Cohen's Lewis Carroll: A Biography (1995).

 

[Flinders]

Oops. Double post.

 

[wfgodot]

Good article from Smithsonian regarding Dodgson and the photographs.

Lewis Carroll's Shifting Reputation

Dodgson, I believe, had at least one parent in attendance when he took his photos. Today they might be in jail as well.

 

[Flinders]

The guy has been working with children for over 60 years - he was even a school teacher.

Based on this, there should be AT LEAST 60 accusers/victims, and that's being conservative, one per year - most pedophiles abuse thousands over their lifetimes.

So where are they all?

Where was all the suspicion when he was awarded an OBE, an MBE, then a CBE, and all the other honours he has received? He had to be recommended for those honours, you don't just get them for being a great guy.

Jimmy Saville had rumours around him for years, like Michael Jackson, like Gary Glitter. Those guys appeared creepy too, in hindsight.

Rolf's reputation is (was) spotless. 60 years of spotless.

:cow:

I am not trying to flame you but he was only ever a swimming teacher for a short time.

Quote...

On his website, Harris says he struggled at university, leaving after two years to enrol in teacher training college.

His first job was teaching children to swim.

But one day he was struck down with a mysterious viral infection and ended up in hospital, totally paralysed.

"During the months I was lying there, I had a lot of time to think and I came to a decision. I wanted to be painter. I wanted to go to London, the hub of the universe, to study art," Harris says on his website.

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/news/vict...-under-age-girls/story-fni0fit3-1226707888768

 

[Flinders]

Based on what?

Wouldn't "child *advertiser censored*" be a bit more than kids in bathers?

Mrs Norris I am sure posted this as sarcasm.

I still wonder why the prosecutor pressed charges, confident of a conviction? Kids in bathers is not what I would consider 'guilty'.

 

[Ausgirl]

In an atmosphere of absolute hysteria, who knows what will be viewed in any particular way.

I was reading today about a popular Aussie musician and devoted family man who was 'tipped' to police as a paedophile. Shortly after, his home was raided and he was arrested for possession of child *advertiser censored* - innocent family photos and a book containing naked child images were seized and offered up as proof of the allegations. Eventually, the author and photographer of the book herself testified to the effect that she intended the book to be art (her work is apparently much like that of Anne Geddes) and that it was marketed widely as art, and the charges were promptly dropped.

I won't link, as I refuse to link that musician's name any further to mention of child *advertiser censored*. Serious bygones...

I notice Tonya Lee repeated the "hand down my skirt waistband" story in the (also lucratively paid) Woman's Day article, almost word for word. I can't help seeing Rolf having these long, rubberman-bendy arms that can travel both up and down a clothing item at the same time.

 

[Perodicticus potto]

Its more likely to be computer images. In Britain when you download a picture that is classed as child *advertiser censored* the crime is described as having created an indecent image, because taken literally, you have created a new image on your computer by pressing right click.

This is correct -- except that you don't even need to right-click, just left-click. Viewing such images on a web page is enough to create a copy of them in your cache.

IMHO, Parliament really need to change the name of this offence. It confuses people and makes them imagine that the accused had a child *advertiser censored* studio in their bedroom. Even in this thread there seems to be confusion, despite the correct explanation of the charge having been given several times.

As you noted in another post, it is possible to "create indecent images" without meaning to. All you have to do is accidentally click on a dodgy web page or file. I did it myself last year when some dirtbag was posting child *advertiser censored* to a Twitter account. Twitter admins took several days to close the account despite thousands of complaints. I saw a tweet from a friend saying "Why is [X]'s account still up?", and like a fool I clicked on X's username to see what people were objecting to. As soon as their timeline appeared on my screen, I broke the law. Never mind that I didn't know beforehand what was there, or that I reported it immediately to the Internet Watch Foundation, or that I needed several gallons of brain bleach afterwards.

However, not everyone who has technically "created indecent images" will be charged with a crime (I wasn't). The Crown Prosecution Service must first decide whether charging them would be "in the public interest." To do this, they take several factors into account, such as the number of images found on their computer; whether they have organised the images in any way; and whether there is any other evidence to suggest they have an inappropriate interest in children. In Rolf's case, I'd guess that his computer was seized after the accusations against him were made, and that it was because of the existing accusations that the CPS chose to treat the presence of indecent images as a criminal matter.

 

[Flinders]

In an atmosphere of absolute hysteria, who knows what will be viewed in any particular way.

I was reading today about a popular Aussie musician and devoted family man who was 'tipped' to police as a paedophile. Shortly after, his home was raided and he was arrested for possession of child *advertiser censored* - innocent family photos and a book containing naked child images were seized and offered up as proof of the allegations. Eventually, the author and photographer of the book herself testified to the effect that she intended the book to be art (her work is apparently much like that of Anne Geddes) and that it was marketed widely as art, and the charges were promptly dropped.

I won't link, as I refuse to link that musician's name any further to mention of child *advertiser censored*. Serious bygones...

I notice Tonya Lee repeated the "hand down my skirt waistband" story in the (also lucratively paid) Woman's Day article, almost word for word. I can't help seeing Rolf having these long, rubberman-bendy arms that can travel both up and down a clothing item at the same time.

Anne Geddes never showed genitals or nipples of boy or girls.

I know someone who was on a jury for a sex offence. The victim must describe in front of a jury and the accused EVERYTHING. Go the victims! But in honesty, it is not a glossy magazine article.

Are you saying RH was tipped to police? I know that mud sticks but why would prosecutors press forward with trumped up charges?

Just why?

 

[Flinders]

Deleted my post.

 

[Tugela]

If Rev. Charles L. Dodgson - Lewis Carroll - were alive today he may have had to write 'Alice' from prison, based on the perceived nature of more than a few of his photographs using very young girls as models.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Attitudes in Victorian times were quite different from today. In those days a nude in itself would not have been considered *advertiser censored* as it was widespread in art. They would have seen nude pictures of children as symbolic of naturalistic innocence. Apparently it was quite fashionable around the time Lewis Carroll was writing so it would not have been seemed all that strange at the time. You can't really view the behaviour of those times through modern eyes.

 

[Cappuccino]

Why would anyone have a reason to charge RH for 4 pictures of a child in a swimsuit?

Under certain circumstances a picture of a child in their swimsuit could constitute Level 1 child *advertiser censored*, but I find it extremely unlikely that anyone would be charged for four pictures of that nature. Level 1 images are normally interpreted by the context in which they are found. For example, you have a hundred or so pictures of children in their underwear on your computer - but you are a professional photographer contracted to take such pictures for a mail order catalogue - the images are legal.

You have one picture of a child posing in their swimwear and three pictures which are unambiguously Level 2 or above child *advertiser censored* - the swimsuit image would be interpreted as part of a child *advertiser censored* collection.

Note - those are just two examples, I have no idea what the nature of any images found on RH's computer are.

 

[HMSHood]

I am seeing more British and Australian entertainers being accused of molestation in light of Jimmy Savile. I wonder if it is related to Savile by any chance.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I am seeing more British and Australian entertainers being accused of molestation in light of Jimmy Savile. I wonder if it is related to Savile by any chance.

Yes, in a way because a team was put together to investigate such offences in light of the Jimmy Saville case. Operation Yewtree Operation Yewtree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know we don't have all the facts here, but it does surprise me that when Rolf Harris is accused of having illegal images of children on his computer it's explained away quickly as possibly just kids in bathers, and since he used to be a swimming teacher we call all ignore that evidence, and when a witness comes forth with her story that's quickly debunked and tucked away and seen as not good enough evidence as well.

I just wonder, is there an element of denial going on here because it's a hard reality to face, would people be so ready to dismiss the accusation if he was someone they had no affection for?

 

[wfgodot]

Attitudes in Victorian times were quite different from today. In those days a nude in itself would not have been considered *advertiser censored* as it was widespread in art. They would have seen nude pictures of children as symbolic of naturalistic innocence. Apparently it was quite fashionable around the time Lewis Carroll was writing so it would not have been seemed all that strange at the time. You can't really view the behaviour of those times through modern eyes.

Agreed. Just trying to provide a bit of historical context into matters like these, involving artists.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I am not trying to flame you but he was only ever a swimming teacher for a short time.

Quote...

On his website, Harris says he struggled at university, leaving after two years to enrol in teacher training college.

His first job was teaching children to swim.

But one day he was struck down with a mysterious viral infection and ended up in hospital, totally paralysed.

"During the months I was lying there, I had a lot of time to think and I came to a decision. I wanted to be painter. I wanted to go to London, the hub of the universe, to study art," Harris says on his website.

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/news/vict...-under-age-girls/story-fni0fit3-1226707888768

I stand corrected, that's what you get for relying on memory. Teacher training college includes placements, so it's likely he was in a classroom in a teaching capacity at some stage.

It's sad that so few people seem to have had a "favourite teacher" when they were young. I had Mr Hay when I was about 9, I adored him. He would no sooner have fiddled with his kids than he would straighten his tie or stop smoking in the classroom (I'm old ok).

To me, Rolf is that guy, the born teacher, the one who kids just love because he just loves them, in a non sexual and fatherly way. Guys like this did exist, back in the olden days. I knew a few of them over my life.

My own grandfathers for example, who were no saints, but weren't molesters either!

Of course, my opinion only...but I have actually met the man and he was just as he appears. Grandfatherly and kindly when he could have taken advantage of a much younger and sillier me.

I had no idea he was so famous so young. Talk about gifted! He was a shining star from the beginning.

Such a shame what has happened to him. You know people will now say, Swimming teacher! Kids in bathers! He must be a pervert! :scared:

 

[SapphireSteel]

Anne Geddes never showed genitals or nipples of boy or girls.

I know someone who was on a jury for a sex offence. The victim must describe in front of a jury and the accused EVERYTHING. Go the victims! But in honesty, it is not a glossy magazine article.

Are you saying RH was tipped to police? I know that mud sticks but why would prosecutors press forward with trumped up charges?

Just why?

Who knows?

They arrested Jim Davidson too, then released him without charge.

That fact right there tells me, someone's overreacting to something, somewhere, in Operation Yewtree...or is that, Operation Youtoo?

The women's story must be believable enough to LE to think there's something to it. They have to investigate allegations, then they are obliged to bring charges if they feel the allegations have substance.

However, having had recent and unfortunate experiences with LE myself, I am very dubious as to their common sense levels and their desire to prosecute at all costs.

Police prosecutors, in my experience, prosecute. It's what they do.

In my case, evidence was not required to prosecute, nor even witness statements. They just mowed on with the prosecution regardless, performed an illegal arrest, then adjourned, adjourned, adjourned, because they haven't got any evidence.

It's still ongoing, on my 9th adjournment and it will probably be dropped now I've finally got a lawyer. At the very least, it will be dismissed by the courts as LE have actually acted illegally all the way through, including at court. Bozos.

My name is smeared, my time has been wasted, it's cost me big money, and you all reading this probably think "yeah right, didn't happen" and that I got arrested and charged because I did something wrong. Not true!

LE have a credibility that in my case at least, they absolutely don't deserve. The UK police aren't exactly shining examples of integrity or infallibility either, in my opinion.


:dunno:

 

[Flinders]

Queen ditches Harris portrait: Mystery as Buckingham Palace sends scandal-hit Rolf's birthday painting of the Monarch back to the BBC... which then 'loses' it

PUBLISHED: 22:08 GMT, 7 September 2013 | UPDATED: 22:09 GMT, 7 September 2013

The portrait hung in the Queen’s Gallery, attached to the south-west wing of the Palace, until 2007 when it was loaned to the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool for several years.

The gallery returned the painting to the Palace in August last year.
In November, Harris was first questioned by police involved in the Operation Yewtree inquiry.

'The portrait was, to our understanding, commissioned and dealt with by the BBC.’
But a BBC insider said: ‘We don’t have it any more and we don’t know where it is now.’
A spokesman for the Corporation added: ‘We never owned the artwork. If the piece is not with us or the Palace, it must be in Mr Harris’ personal collection.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ting-Monarch-BBC--loses-it.html#ixzz2eFuvsoBK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Perodicticus potto]

I just wonder, is there an element of denial going on here because it's a hard reality to face, would people be so ready to dismiss the accusation if he was someone they had no affection for?

Even if he were a completely unsympathetic figure, he would still be innocent until proven guilty.