Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Rolf Harris Trial Verdict
Rolf Harris Guilty on all charges
Answers
Lots of abusers are still very much alive and kicking and almost certainly still abusing. Google Elm Guest House for instance. Cyril Smith was never prosecuted because he knew where the bodies were buried. He didn't abuse boys in Rochdale on his own. Local journalists will tell you about the "dirty mac brigade" that used to turn up by train on a Saturday...
08:36 Wed 02nd Jul 2014
but presumably not just a good artist but a good man? Harris is still a good or bad artist according to taste, but it's his personal reputation that's changed here, not his professional one. If he was a good artist yesterday he still is; if you don't want his works on your wall any more it's for non-aesthetic reasons.
jno; I think you are right there; both Francis Bacon and Lucien Freud's (to name but two) lifestyles would shock most middle-English sensibilities.
But to return to the subject, its must be very difficult for younger generations (and it's jurors?) to grasp just how different societies mores were over half a century ago. Consider the 'sex, drugs and rock'n'roll' explosive re-action to societies values of the time, and much more. There is, oddly enough, a photograph from around 1960 in my morning paper of today, taken at a bus stop in Alabama showing black folk sitting on a bench with a fence between them and the 'white' bench. It really was another age, and all unthinkable today.
I'm not making any excuses, just saying one has to beware of retrospective judgement. It may seem hard to believe, but some of these now elderly men were once 'stars' and as such were besieged by attention-seeking young women.
Personally, I have always liked Rolf, he has brought a lot of fun into peoples lives, he's made me laugh and sing, and done some very good work. There may be one or two dark bits but haven't most of us got those?
I wont be casting any stones.
But to return to the subject, its must be very difficult for younger generations (and it's jurors?) to grasp just how different societies mores were over half a century ago. Consider the 'sex, drugs and rock'n'roll' explosive re-action to societies values of the time, and much more. There is, oddly enough, a photograph from around 1960 in my morning paper of today, taken at a bus stop in Alabama showing black folk sitting on a bench with a fence between them and the 'white' bench. It really was another age, and all unthinkable today.
I'm not making any excuses, just saying one has to beware of retrospective judgement. It may seem hard to believe, but some of these now elderly men were once 'stars' and as such were besieged by attention-seeking young women.
Personally, I have always liked Rolf, he has brought a lot of fun into peoples lives, he's made me laugh and sing, and done some very good work. There may be one or two dark bits but haven't most of us got those?
I wont be casting any stones.
One or two dark bits don't really equate to sexually molesting 7 year olds do they Khandro? Okay maybe someone once got drunk and streaked down The Mall or once spiked the headmaster's cocoa with drugs- that's maybe a 'dark bit' but attacking children is just in another league of never being acceptable- ever.
-- answer removed --
Neither do I but I do believe that most juries take very seriously their responsibilities in making sure innocent men are not found guilty of crimes they don't commit, and therefore not having herd the evidence personally I can only assume that the people who did found the allegations proved beyond reasonable doubt. He's a paedophile, please don't defend him, its insulting to his victims and to all victims who have come forward.
I did wonder how long it would be before blinkered apologists appeared, people unable to cope with the exposure of their idol.
I remember the "sexual revolution" mores very well, and child abuse was not one of them. And I'm not sure what apartheid in Alabama has to do with it - scraping the barrel if you ask me. Face up to it, he's a paedophile. And if the behaviour was acceptable, why did he write that letter ?
I remember the "sexual revolution" mores very well, and child abuse was not one of them. And I'm not sure what apartheid in Alabama has to do with it - scraping the barrel if you ask me. Face up to it, he's a paedophile. And if the behaviour was acceptable, why did he write that letter ?
