Rolf Harris

[ralphchadkirk]

Pretending Rolf Harris was never an artist, was never on TV and was never a celebrity strikes me as someone trying to delete him from history - presumably through embarrassment now of ever having liked him as an entertainer.

History should remember Harris as a convicted paedophile who appeared on national and international TV as a revered entertainer and artist - a warning that no matter how clean someone can appear, there may be hidden depths to them. He should not have his entire career simply airbrushed from history as then it would serve as no warning at all.

Other posters have already pointed out other artists with convictions like Harris - for example Eric Gill. It's still ok to like Eric Gill's work as a typographer and dislike Eric Gill's person.

 

[jon0844]

We have already had TV companies seeking to edit out the appearance of certain people, or simply not show a programme again at all, which seems rather silly. More so is that I read in the USA, there are many people who have a problem with shows that feature the twin towers in New York. I mean, come on! Will it be a horrible remember to the families of the victims or some people thinking that they're helping when they're not?

 

[Johnuk123]

I've not read all the posts in this thread, so apologies if this has already been raised, but a couple of related issues trouble me, in respect of Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter, and others of similar ilk.

The late JS has single handedly prevented me (and I guess) many others from reliving large parts of my youth, namely rendering about ten or twenty percent of archived Top of the Pops from the sixties, seventies and eighties unbroadcastable.

And whilst I was never a great fan of GG, I guess others enjoyed his music, and I imagine members of his band must be cursing him for the destruction of their pension plan - ie ongoing royalties from the playing of their records.

I'm not suggesting we should ignore what they've done, and I'm pretty sure I'd be uncomfortable watching if JS's editions of TOTP were ever played again, but it does seem a little unfortunate that significant parts of our musical heritage, ie performances by bands totally unconnected to Savile but tainted by being on shows he fronted are now taboo.

It wouldn't stop me watching TOTP whoever was on it. As regards Glitter his records are still played all over the world and he's earning about 300 grand a year from them.

 

[AnnieKerr]

It wouldn't stop me watching TOTP whoever was on it. As regards Glitter his records are still played all over the world and he's earning about 300 grand a year from them.

How about the Lost Prophets? Can you still watch Ian Watkins in a Last Train Home video? Are you OK with him profiting from his song royalties knowing that he used the fame that they brought to attract people who could provide him with victims? Your average pedophile does not have such access to victims: Watkins' fame facilitated his crimes.

What's about Scott Volker? Are you OK with him being a gold medal winner whilst the girls he abused dropped out of swimming and developed eating disorders and could no longer compete or feel good about themselves or the sport they loved? Should he be allowed to continue coaching young girls in Brazil but carefully watched so he can't abuse them but continue earning a living? After all, he is a brilliant coach and he only abused a few girls...... (ref Calvin Trillin and his satire about our forgiveness of Roman Polanski)

A youthful error? Yes, perhaps.
But he's been punished for this lapse--
For decades exiled from LA
He knows, as he wakes up each day,
He'll miss the movers and the shakers.
He'll never get to see the Lakers.
For just one old and small mischance,
He has to live in Paris, France.
He's suffered slurs and other stuff.
Has he not suffered quite enough?
How can these people get so riled?
He only raped a single child.

Why make him into some Darth Vader
For sodomizing one eighth grader?
This man is brilliant, that's for sure--
Authentically, a film auteur.
He gets awards that are his due.
He knows important people, too--
Important people just like us.
And we know how to make a fuss.
Celebrities would just be fools
To play by little people's rules.
So Roman's banner we unfurl.
He only raped one little girl.

I'm not sure I want to unfurl Rolf Harris' banner by allowing his art to remain and extolling it as art. Same with the Lostprohets and Eric Gills statue at the BBC makes me feel queasy. I don't know about you but a statue of a man holding a boy in such a way the child's genitals are exposed is.... I don't know.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=e...hi%2Fuk_news%2Fmagazine%2F6979731.stm;203;300


What does everyone else think?


(PS Are you really from Ilkeston, Ilkestonian? My family is!)

 

[meridian2]

How about the Lost Prophets? Can you still watch Ian Watkins in a Last Train Home video? Are you OK with him profiting from his song royalties knowing that he used the fame that they brought to attract people who could provide him with victims? Your average pedophile does not have such access to victims: Watkins' fame facilitated his crimes.

That's quite a naive thing to say; how do you know for certain that the royalties through Youtube will go to Ian Watkins?If that was he case, don't you think we would've seen a moral outrage from people using Youtube for it continuing to host Lost Prophet videos, or Rolf Harris videos?
We all know the only people profiteering from Rolf Harris and Ian Watkins convictions are those that continue to host their respective videos.

 

[AnnieKerr]

how do you know for certain that the royalties through Youtube will go to Ian Watkins?If that was he case, don't you think we would've seen a moral outrage from people using Youtube for it continuing to host Lost Prophet videos, or Rolf Harris videos?
We all know the only people profiteering from Rolf Harris and Ian Watkins convictions are those that continue to host their respective videos.

Au contraire, Monseuir, as Poirot might say, put être (Warning: bad schoolchild Franglais in use) I don't say " he is profiting", I say "are you, any member of this board OK with him profiting". What are our feelings on this hypothetical state of affairs?

Poirot would say " C’est une question hypothétique.." IF Ian Watkins was profiting from his songs, how would you feel?

So, everyone, ask yourself, do you feel it would be OK for Ian Watkins to profit from his songs as Gary Glitter is profiting according to John-123

I would be particularly interested if anyone feels it's OK for some of the following ( or their family/ beneficiaries of their wills) to profit from their art but not others: Graham Ovenden, Jimmy Savile, Ian Watkins, Gary Glitter, Eric Gill, William Mayne, Roman Polanski...and of course, Rolf Harris. What's the group consensus?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's quite a naive thing to say; how do you know for certain that the royalties through Youtube will go to Ian Watkins?If that was he case, don't you think we would've seen a moral outrage from people using Youtube for it continuing to host Lost Prophet videos"......

Ah! Is it possible you misunderstood or I wasn't clear? When I wrote "How about the Lost Prophets? Can you still watch Ian Watkins in a Last Train Home video? Are you OK with him profiting from his song royalties....." I didn't mean "can you still watch Ian Watkins in a Last Train Home video on YouTube which I am hereby stating gives him royalties" No, I completely get that YouTube doesn't give him royalties and I never mentioned YouTube. I meant " can you stomach seeing Ian Watkins on a video anywhere eg a DVD you might own, a video channel you see at the gym etc. etc. and then a separate question " if he earns royalties from any performance of his song per se" how would you FEEL about it"

(I agree it would be a very naive person who thought watching Ian Watkins on YouTube paid him royalties!)

 

[ilkestonian]

(PS Are you really from Ilkeston, Ilkestonian? My family is!)

I was...

I'd lived in Derbyshire since 1977 and in good old Ilson for the best part of twenty years until I moved elsewhere last year.

 

[meridian2]

Ah! Is it possible you misunderstood or I wasn't clear? When I wrote "How about the Lost Prophets? Can you still watch Ian Watkins in a Last Train Home video? Are you OK with him profiting from his song royalties....." I didn't mean "can you still watch Ian Watkins in a Last Train Home video on YouTube which I am hereby stating gives him royalties" No, I completely get that YouTube doesn't give him royalties and I never mentioned YouTube. I meant " can you stomach seeing Ian Watkins on a video anywhere eg a DVD you might own, a video channel you see at the gym etc. etc. and then a separate question " if he earns royalties from any performance of his song per se" how would you FEEL about it"

(I agree it would be a very naive person who thought watching Ian Watkins on YouTube paid him royalties!)

Sorry for the misunderstanding AnnieKerr.
How would I feel? My feelings are irrelevant. I would hope that those producers of said videos or DVDs would no longer pay any royalty whatsoever after his conviction. They would be morally bankrupt but sadly money talks.
Watching a Lost Prophets video is of no interest to me. I assume they are a band of some sort?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Ok. So what is the difference between us personally knowing a victim and for her to be an anonymous member of the society in which we live?

The difference is purely emotional: Rationally I know that enjoying his paintings as works of art in their own rights has no bearing on what I think of his crimes and what I might feel for his victims. But emotionally, I would imagine that if someone I was close to had been abused by Rolf Harris, then the emotional connection in my own mind would probably be strong enough to prevent me personally from being able to enjoy those paintings. But I'd still respect the right of other people to enjoy them. (This is speculative - as it happens I don't have any particular interest in Rolf Harris's paintings).

Of course we all show respect to the acknowledged victim who is our neighbour and friend. But what about the I acknowledged clandestine victim: our neighbour of friend who hides her abuse? Would it be OK to leave Rolfs work up on our wAll and inadvertently insult her because she does not care to express her pain at how Rolf sexually assaulted her?

Realistically, the population of the UK is over 60 million. Of that number, the probability that my next door neighbour is secretly a victim of Rolf Harris is so small that it wouldn't be sensible to make decisions based on that. I imagine there's a rather greater likelihood that my next door neighbour is secretly an al Qaeda operative, or secretly a mafia-style gang leader, but I'm not losing sleep over either of those remote possibilities either. Obviously, if I discovered that my next door neighbour actually was a victim, then that would be different.

And how about the unknown victim? Why is it alright for us to look at and condone Rolfs art if the victim is unknown to us but somehow wrong to display it if we have a personal connection with the victim?

I did not say it was wrong to look at Rolf Harris's art. I think I made it clear before that (I believe) the art stands in its own right. I don't see how it shows any disrespect for the victims of Rolf Harris if you condemn his crimes but at the same time appreciate art that, in the end, does not in the end have anything to do with his crimes.