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

[Flinders]

I think there's a big difference between doubting an accuser's credibility on the superficial grounds that she is accusing someone good looking, apparently clean living and rich, and doubting her story because she's selling it to the press before the case has even reached court.

I am getting tired now. She was supported by a victim crime group to speak. She is even supported in the media for speaking out by Bravehearts.

I would stand on a street corner and speak for free. If some glossy wants me, the fee would go to a charity.

 

[Cappuccino]

She is not speaking for free on a street corner, she has hired herself a press agent and gotten busy earning money from her story. And all this before the case has even reached court!

If I was the prosecutor I would be furious with her and whatever group is misguided enough to support her decision to do that. If I was on a jury I would have reasonable doubt.

 

[Strangeworld]

What about all the victims who write a book about their experience of abuse? Should they all be viewed the same as this potential victim?

Would this potential victim still be judged the same way if she appeared on tv after a court had found RH guilty? If she appeared exactly the same as she did the other night, how would you explain her behaviour then - still lying?

 

[Cappuccino]

I think the difference between selling your story to the press before and after trial is obvious. Like many cases of sexual abuse its going to be the accuser's word against the accused - and that's especially true of allegations of historical sexual abuse. The burden of proof is already on the prosecution, RH doesn't have to prove her a liar. Its the prosecutor who has to convince the jury that she is truthful and accurate.

She's damaged her own credibility by receiving financial benefit from her story.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I really don't think the fact that she got an agent lends any weight to her credibility, it may just simply be that she lacked the ability to make the arrangements herself and wanted to make some money. I don't necessarily approve either, or think that is wise, and understand that people question her for doing so. I know this because I follow true crime and see how these actions are received.

It may well be that she is telling the truth, and at the same time has poor judgement. She is after all simply a normal person, speaking out against a celebrity, rather daunting I imagine.

Receiving money does not automatically mean that was her primary motivation.

 

[Flinders]

What about all the victims who write a book about their experience of abuse? Should they all be viewed the same as this potential victim?

Would this potential victim still be judged the same way if she appeared on tv after a court had found RH guilty? If she appeared exactly the same as she did the other night, how would you explain her behaviour then - still lying?

Good point. Katie Beers in the US was held captive in a sexual nature 20 years ago. She has a new book. Insightful commentary.

 

[Cappuccino]

I know, but I'm afraid it does mean that I wouldn't convict anyone of a serious criminal offense on her say so alone. Obviously we don't know what corroborative evidence, if any, there is though.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I know, but I'm afraid it does mean that I wouldn't convict anyone of a serious criminal offense on her say so alone. Obviously we don't know what corroborative evidence, if any, there is though.

If it was just her I may feel the same way, but it's not, there is her, another woman, and some images.

 

[Cappuccino]

If it was just her I may feel the same way, but it's not, there is her, another woman, and some images.

The other woman and the images are things we know very little about at this stage. I'm happy to remain skeptical at this stage, but I don't have any strong feelings either way about RH himself. So I'm skeptical, but willing to change my mind if the evidence is there.

 

[Ausgirl]

What about all the victims who write a book about their experience of abuse? Should they all be viewed the same as this potential victim?

Would this potential victim still be judged the same way if she appeared on tv after a court had found RH guilty? If she appeared exactly the same as she did the other night, how would you explain her behaviour then - still lying?

If she was still flubbing her account of the alleged crime in great and vivid detail - to be honest, yes I probably would.

But as Cappucino has wisely said up there, there's several other factors in play that not much is known about, but will come out in the wash when RH is actually brought to trial. So I'll join you on that fence, Cappa.

As a survivor myself, I am keenly interested in seeing proper justice done, all round.

 

[Cappuccino]

Coronation Street actor Michael LeVell has just been acquitted of rape. The accuser in that case was another one who was running to the tabloids for money before the trial even started.

The acquittal doesn't surprise me.

 

[wfgodot]

Michael Le Vell acquitted of child sex offences. (Guardian)

 

[SapphireSteel]

Yes, all those who think the UK police are beyond reproach and would never charge anyone with anything if they didn't think they were guilty -

It took Michael Le Vell's jury less than five hours to declare him NOT GUILTY and drop all the charges against him.

As we all know, mud sticks - this guy has had his reputation and possibly his career ruined all because of one spiteful/unbalanced/fame hungry little liar.

There is a bit of a witch hunt going on in the UK at the moment. Operation Youtoo is looking like a big fat farce right about now.

Apparently one can lie through their teeth and be believed by UK police.

:cow:

 

[wfgodot]

Anorak:

Spare a thought for Michael Le Vell, victim of the tabloid-friendly cult of child abuse

 

[SapphireSteel]

Anorak:

Spare a thought for Michael Le Vell, victim of the tabloid-friendly cult of child abuse

Truly appalling.

I note his accuser still has her anonymity. "Oh mummy, you don't want to know"...please. :banghead:

An absolute disgrace, a travesty, this is NOT justice.

Thank God for Anorak, a clear and calm voice amongst the hysteria that is the UK media.

:cow:

 

[Flinders]

The attitude to sexual assault varies between the sexes and different generations it seems.

This man believes that a teacher putting his hand down his pants never hurt him or the other pupils he witnessed getting fondled.

Quote...

Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild' Pedophilia, Again and Again

BY ABBY OHLHEISER | SEP 10, 2013


Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”

He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.

He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called “just mild touching up.”

he personally overcame childhood sexual abuse, meaning it must not be that big of a deal for anyone else who was subjected to similar behavior.


This line of thought goes back at least to 2006 for Dawkins, when he wrote "we live in a time of hysteria about paedophilia, a mob psychology that calls to mind the Salem witch-hunts of 1692," in his popular book the God Delusion. He continued:

All three of the boarding schools I attended employed teachers whose affections for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety. That was indeed reprehensible. Nevertheless, if, fifty years on, they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers, I should have felt obliged to come to their defence, even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience).
http://m.theatlanticwire.com/global...efends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/69269/

On the fence with Rolf but who thinks any touching up of a minor is OK and they would give the offending teachers a reference?

 

[Cappuccino]

Richard Dawkins did not say touching up a minor is ok, nor did he say he would give an offending teacher a reference. He said it was wrong to hound people for it fifty years later and if any of the teachers who molested him were on the receiving end of a witch hunt 50 years later, he would speak in their defense.

His opinion on touching up minors is made quite clear in the quote from him - "reprehensible."

 

[Flinders]

Richard Dawkins did not say touching up a minor is ok, nor did he say he would give an offending teacher a reference. He said it was wrong to hound people for it fifty years later and if any of the teachers who molested him were on the receiving end of a witch hunt 50 years later, he would speak in their defense.

His opinion on touching up minors is made quite clear in the quote from him - "reprehensible."

Do you have a link? I would love to read that a molestation that happened 50 years ago is OK.

My link says he would give a character reference for the nice teachers that put their hands boys pants. So what, he says. A grope is a grope. Nothing compared to the grief of a Christian who has lost a friend be says. God makes you feel guilty according to him. Only God

I still would prefer a link on MSM to support your post. Please.

 

[Flinders]

Reprehensible but excusable. He says.

 

[Cappuccino]

The link is in your own post. I'm quoting what Richard Dawkins said according to YOUR post and the link therein. Quote me where he says anything like what you're accusing him of saying!! He never said it was okay, he never said it was reprehensible but excusable, and nor did he offer a character reference.

Or at least he didn't in any link you posted. Btw, Dawkins himself was molested as a child - since when is it okay to bash victims for the way they handle their experience of abuse?