Rolf Harris charged with multiple nonce crimes..

Gbear

DublinWriter wrote: »

Or that Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year old cousin.

Or that Bill Wyman was seeing Mandy Smith when she was 13.

There's also Jimmy Page and 14 year old Lori Maddox and the Irish "individual" he used to procure her.

I think it's possible to get too judgmental about this sort of thing.

The reason we have laws of consent are for practical reasons.
We evolved to start having sex and babies a lot younger than the 30-35 sort of range that's common now a days.

I don't want to excuse what all these men did but attitudes have changed over the centuries and decades.
Sonny Boy Williamson's "Good Morning Little Schoolgirl", "Stray Cat Blues" by the Rolling Stones, "She's Too Young" by John Mayall and so on all suggest that things were a little vaguer 40-70 years ago. Imagine One Direction coming out with something similar today.

It's certainly a good idea to have these laws to protect what are still legally children but that doesn't mean it's fair to lump all these men into the paedophile category.

Of course if there were charges relating to events right up until 2012 that's quite another matter for Rolf Harris.

chopper6

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but in the current climate people should be really, really careful saying these sort of things.

Just speculating of course...i certainly havn't heard any names thus far.

The music Industry now....there's a diffrent kettle of fish.

hardCopy

mike65 wrote: »

Elvis only "started seeing", Jerry Lee Lewis married his cousin who was 13. That's how you do it south of the Mason-Dixon line

Prescilla and a few others
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/26/article-1261082-08E2EEEC000005DC-167_468x485.jpg

DublinWriter

Gbear wrote: »

It's certainly a good idea to have these laws to protect what are still legally children but that doesn't mean it's fair to lump all these men into the paedophile category.

Of course if there were charges relating to events right up until 2012 that's quite another matter for Rolf Harris.

That's just so much moral relativism. What's wrong now is the same as what was wrong then.

Just because corporal punishment was made illegal in 1982, was it a-okay for an adult teacher to physically hit a child in the previous years?

The reason I put Jerry Lee Lewis, Jimmy Page and Bill Wyman in the paedophile category is because they slept with girls under the age of 16.

Gbear

DublinWriter wrote: »

That's just so much moral relativism. What's wrong now is the same as what was wrong then.

Just because corporal punishment was made illegal in 1982, was it a-okay for an adult teacher to physically hit a child in the previous years?

The reason I put Jerry Lee Lewis, Jimmy Page and Bill Wyman in the paedophile category is because they slept with girls under the age of 16.

There's a difference between condoning the action and not being overly judgemental of those that did it.

While 20 year old men marrying 15 year old girls in 1750 might've been a bad practice, it doesn't meant that each individual that engaged in it was terrible and a paedophile. The closer you get to the present the greyer that distinction becomes.

FoxyVixen

Gbear wrote: »

The reason we have laws of consent are for practical reasons.
We evolved to start having sex and babies a lot younger than the 30-35 sort of range that's common now a days.

I don't want to excuse what all these men did but attitudes have changed over the centuries and decades.
Sonny Boy Williamson's "Good Morning Little Schoolgirl", "Stray Cat Blues" by the Rolling Stones, "She's Too Young" by John Mayall and so on all suggest that things were a little vaguer 40-70 years ago. Imagine One Direction coming out with something similar today.

It's certainly a good idea to have these laws to protect what are still legally children but that doesn't mean it's fair to lump all these men into the paedophile category.

Of course if there were charges relating to events right up until 2012 that's quite another matter for Rolf Harris.

Whilst we may have evolved to procreate earlier in our lives (girls are having the menstrual cycles as early as 11 now), this does not in any way mean that their young mindset has evolved accordingly, nor matured, to understand the implications of such acts.

So I personally think it's more than adequate to use the term paedophile to men who seem incapable of "wooing" woman over the legal age. It's disgusting to prey on children as sex objects which is how they see them. They're not trying to start a long term relationship with a 14yr old.

Gbear

FoxyVixen wrote: »

So I personally think it's more than adequate to use the term paedophile to men who seem incapable of "wooing" woman over the legal age. It's disgusting to prey on children as sex objects which is how they see them. They're not trying to start a long term relationship with a 14yr old.

You can call an apple a banana if you want.

A paedophile is someone with a mental illness that causes them to incorrectly find children attractive.

Finding people attractive under an arbitrary age of consent doesn't suggest mental illness.

Society has rightly decided that girls and boys under a certain age should be protected from sex, as they are protected from driving and drinking. That's a practical consideration, not a medical one.

stoneill

Collies van shop on Kylemore Road in Ballyer - that was Rolf's dad.

syklops

FoxyVixen wrote: »

So I personally think it's more than adequate to use the term paedophile to men who seem incapable of "wooing" woman over the legal age. It's disgusting to prey on children as sex objects which is how they see them. They're not trying to start a long term relationship with a 14yr old.

Thats all well and good for single men, but it hardly applies to Rolf Harris who has been married for 55 years.

suicide_circus

Times change. Judging people on what they did in the past when attitudes were different isn't always clear cut. Girls could be married with kids at 15 years back.

FoxyVixen

Gbear wrote: »

A paedophile is someone with a mental illness that causes them to incorrectly find children attractive.

Finding people attractive under an arbitrary age of consent doesn't suggest mental illness.

Yes I see where you're coming from now. I misinterpreted what you had said.

A grey matter indeed, but fairly clear cut in this case if he's still downloading pictures that he would fall under the paedophile category.

FoxyVixen

syklops wrote: »

Thats all well and good for single men, but it hardly applies to Rolf Harris who has been married for 55 years.

What doesn't apply?

Fighting Irish

Sexy 16 year olds

Call Me Jimmy

It's somewhat a theory of mine that deviant behavior manifests itself physically in a person making them look weird as f-uck:Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris, Glitter.

Either that or them looking so weird made them from a young age have to repress their sexualities and hating themselves which in time inevitably leads to deviant behavior.

mike65

Gbear wrote: »

I don't want to excuse what all these men did but attitudes have changed over the centuries and decades.
Sonny Boy Williamson's "Good Morning Little Schoolgirl", "Stray Cat Blues" by the Rolling Stones, "She's Too Young" by John Mayall and so on all suggest that things were a little vaguer 40-70 years ago. Imagine One Direction coming out with something similar today.

Christ, I sooner not

GalwayGuy2

Prescilla and a few others
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...67_468x485.jpg

That picture actually made me feel sick.

They shortest, and youngest, looks so adoring of him.

briany

Billy86 wrote: »

One that amazes me is that nobody seemed to give much of a s*** that Elvis started seeing his wife Priscilla when she was 14.

But he can't be a creep - he's Elvis! Same goes for Jerry Lee, Chuck Berry and Jimmy Page. Strange how some names turn the upright moral absolutists into 'that's how it was then' and 'it was consensual!' apologists. Meanwhile Dave Lee Travis allegedly put his hand up a 17 year old's skirt and jiggled a newsreader's breasts 40 & 30 years ago respectively and he's the devil. Terribly demeaning things to do a woman but why wait so long to lodge a complaint? Surely with the video/DNA evidence you undoubtedly have of this - oh, wait... What's that? You only have a claim? Is that good enough? Really?

I realise that there probably were a lot of misdeeds going on but when you have a tabloid fuelled campaign like this, what's to stop every lunatic from putting forward a complaint about some event that happened 35 years ago and concocting a detailed testimony to go along with it? How do we know the victims are being vetted as much by the police as the accused to ensure the veracity of their story? How do we know they're not just trying to cash in or engage in some personal vendetta that's not related to their claim?

donutheadhomer

Amalgam wrote: »

www.rte.ie/news/2013/0829/470994-rolf-harris/

Some surprisingly recent..

I've only got Keith Chegwin to reminisce about innocently.

..and Maggie Philbin, not so innocently..

Should have stuck to blowing his didgeridoo

BognarRegis

FoxyVixen wrote: »

A grey matter indeed, but fairly clear cut in this case if he's still downloading pictures that he would fall under the paedophile category.

Based on the clinical meaning of the word, to be paedophilic, pictures would have to be of under 12's.

To be illegal, the images would merely have to be indecent pictures of under 18's. If he'd downloaded and kept illegal images, he'd have been charged with posession.In the UK, 'making' charges essentially refer to viewing, so they must have scoured his hard disc for fragments or traces of anything illegal that they could use to add weight to the charges. UK law does not explicitly define what is meant by 'indecent'. He'll now have to prove he didn't look at the images or that they were not indecent. The jury will not be impressed.

I'd say the images charges are an attempt by the police to prejudice his case.

Cody Pomeray

Gbear wrote: »

A paedophile is someone with a mental illness that causes them to incorrectly find children attractive.

I agree with most of your post except this. Isn't there an argument that paedophiles fall into a normal distribution curve of sexual attraction? Most Irish and British men probably find women attractive between the ages of (for argument's sake) 17 and 25. We'll call that the peak. Statistically, it's argued that some men have an attraction towards people all along the curve, from infancy to old age. I'm not sure it's a mental illness.

donutheadhomer

BognarRegis wrote: »

Based on the clinical meaning of the word, to be paedophilic, pictures would have to be of under 12's.

To be illegal, the images would merely have to be indecent pictures of under 18's. If he'd downloaded and kept illegal images, he'd have been charged with posession.In the UK, 'making' charges essentially refer to viewing, so they must have scoured his hard disc for fragments or traces of anything illegal that they could use to add weight to the charges. UK law does not explicitly define what is meant by 'indecent'. He'll now have to prove he didn't look at the images or that they were not indecent. The jury will not be impressed.

I'd say the images charges are an attempt by the police to prejudice his case.

copying and pasting would be classified as "creating"????

Festy

Guess we won't be seeing this ad on TV anytime soon

BognarRegis

EurasianBadger wrote: »

copying and pasting would be classified as "creating"????

Under their law that is also 'making'. But in that case, if he still had the stuff, they'd charge him with both posession and making.

donutheadhomer

BognarRegis wrote: »

Under their law that is also 'making'. But in that case, he he still had the stuff, they'd charge him with both posession and making.

so creating does not mean that he filmed it or was involved in the actual physical production?

briany

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I agree with most of your post except this. Isn't there an argument that paedophiles fall into a normal distribution curve of sexual attraction? Most Irish and British men probably find women attractive between the ages of (for argument's sake) 17 and 25. We'll call that the peak. Statistically, it's argued that some men have an attraction towards people all along the curve, from infancy to old age. I'm not sure it's a mental illness.

Homosexuality has been listed as a mental illness but not anymore. Things are vague and views change, change back and then change again. Who knows what's right or wrong or utterly f***ed in the head? It boils down to what someone says and a general consensus over it which invariably shifts over time, seemingly around in circles.

BognarRegis

EurasianBadger wrote: »

so creating does not mean that he filmed it or was involved in the actual physical production?

That would be charged as 'taking' an indecent image.

You can 'make' an indecent image in the UK, simply by having it on your computer screen. If you print it or copy it, that's 'making and posessing'.

donutheadhomer

BognarRegis wrote: »

That would be charged as 'taking' an indecent image.

You can 'make' an indecent image in the UK, simply by having it on your computer screen. If you print it or copy it, that's 'making and posessing'.

confusing

Cody Pomeray

briany wrote: »

Homosexuality has been listed as a mental illness but not anymore. Things are vague and views change, change back and then change again. Who knows what's right or wrong or utterly f***ed in the head?

Well it's unquestionably wrong to act on it, because you're drawing a minor into a vulnerable position where they cannot assert or know their rights.

But is it wrong to have sexual attraction towards young people? Is it wrong for that to happen to a person against their will, where applicable? I doubt it. I'm not sure what calling it a 'disease' achieves. Almost (but not quite) like homosexuality.

steddyeddy

My childhood has been officially ruined

GalwayGuy2

But is it wrong to have sexual attraction towards young people? Is it wrong for that to happen to a person against their will, where applicable? I doubt it. I'm not sure what calling it a 'disease' achieves. Almost (but not quite) like homosexuality.

Um, yes, it is wrong/unnatural to have sexual attraction to prepubescent children...