Rolf Harris

[Oswyntail]

What Harris did was - still is - abhorrent. But should we start to rewrite history, and ignore the fact that, in his heyday, he was a very good light entertainer? I enjoyed his shows at the time - should they be wiped out now? I know they are poor stuff, but what do people think of calls to burn his paintings? To go a little further, consider Eric Gill, a brilliant artist, a leading sculptor and graphic designer, whose private life should confine him to a deep hell. Should the (justly praised) statue of Ariel outside Broadcasting House be destroyed?

 

[Flamingo]

Is he a British Citizen or would he be looking at Transportationback to Austrailia after finishing his sentence?

There you go, fixed that for you

 

[chorleyjeff]

From what I understand the media have been rather coy on reporting the often very graphic details of the cases.

I think a lot of it has come down to the believability of the witnesses, something that obviously the reporters are not going to make judgement calls on.

Lots of horrible detail in the judges remarks.
A very very unpleasant man who seems to me have got off quite lightly.
But it does make me think about how tolerance of what is now called sexual assault has changed. A couple of days ago a rather prim elderly lady said in conversation about the case that in her day women didn't fuss about such things and was not bothered that when she was young her bottom was frequently squeezed by gentlemen at work. She obviously had no idea what Harris had done to kids.

 

[Kryten2340]

What Harris did was - still is - abhorrent. But should we start to rewrite history, and ignore the fact that, in his heyday, he was a very good light entertainer? I enjoyed his shows at the time - should they be wiped out now? I know they are poor stuff, but what do people think of calls to burn his paintings? To go a little further, consider Eric Gill, a brilliant artist, a leading sculptor and graphic designer, whose private life should confine him to a deep hell. Should the (justly praised) statue of Ariel outside Broadcasting House be destroyed?

I refer you to the case of former professional wrestler Chris Benoit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Benoit_double-murder_and_suicide

It doesn't matter how good of an entertainer Chris was his actions will always shadow and destroy the reputation/legacy he had. The same applies here.

 

[Clip]

What Harris did was - still is - abhorrent. But should we start to rewrite history, and ignore the fact that, in his heyday, he was a very good light entertainer? I enjoyed his shows at the time - should they be wiped out now? I know they are poor stuff, but what do people think of calls to burn his paintings? To go a little further, consider Eric Gill, a brilliant artist, a leading sculptor and graphic designer, whose private life should confine him to a deep hell. Should the (justly praised) statue of Ariel outside Broadcasting House be destroyed?

You;re right he was a good entertainer and I thoroughly enjoyed watching his shows and buying hs books to try to learn to draw and paint like him - I dont think anyone would disagree with that so why mention it?

The fact we have now discovered he is a dirty pervert has tainted mine and others memories of him which leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I dont believe in the calls to burn his paintings but you may aswell as they are worthless now - why keep them but as with teh case of Gill who you mention then there will be people who say you shouldnt destroy art for any reason and others who say you should because of his depraved lifestyle - the only people who can make that decision is the BBC.

 

[Minilad]

I seem to remember a certain Mr Glitter's reputation utterly torn to shreds. No reason why this should be any different in my opinion. The fact he was a good entertainer shouldn't detract from the fact he indulged in loathsome acts that any right minded person would be disgusted by

 

[talltim]

10 years ago, one of my favourite childhood authors was convicted of child abuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mayne
I have kept many of the best books from my childhood, some I still enjoy reading as an adult and many would be hard to acquire again. My children are a bit young yet, but I hope they enjoy them as much as I did.
However I'm very conflicted as to what to do with the many William Mayne books I have kept. His conviction doesn't stop them being good, but... At present they are in a box in the loft.
I would be interested to hear what other's opinions are?
Edit: this article is interesting http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6979731.stm

 

[Johnuk123]

I dont believe in the calls to burn his paintings but you may aswell as they are worthless now - why keep them but as with teh case of Gill who you mention then there will be people who say you shouldnt destroy art for any reason and others who say you should because of his depraved lifestyle - the only people who can make that decision is the BBC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/03/rolf-harris-art-worthless-ghouls_n_5554543.html

Ghouls are trying to cash in on Rolf Harris' convictions for sex offences by snapping up his paintings at all-time-low prices in the hope they later rocket in value, experts have claimed.

Not really surprising as it's true that the paintings will almost certainly go back up in price, probably to even more than they were before his conviction.

 

[Oswyntail]

.... I dont think anyone would disagree with that so why mention it?.....

Because there will be many people asking themselves how they could possibly have enjoyed watching such a vile person, perhaps feeling tainted themselves because of it. And because there have been calls for all record of his shows, even all of his contribution to British life, to be destroyed Personally, I do not believe that the contribution in any way mitigates his crimes - I believe he has got off lightly - but I do feel "conflicted".

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Not really surprising as it's true that the paintings will almost certainly go back up in price, probably to even more than they were before his conviction.

This would not be unique - there is a noticable market these days for the paintings produced by the subject of Godwin's Law, is there not?

 

[meridian2]

Because there will be many people asking themselves how they could possibly have enjoyed watching such a vile person, perhaps feeling tainted themselves because of it.

I don't feel tainted, because like many of his fans back then who enjoyed his oeuvres I feel betrayed.

I feel he has betrayed many people who confided in someone who appeared so solidly human, but underneath, he was anything but.

This trial has highlighted that if you accept someone at face value, then you were born foolish and are a fool yourself. Trust nobody, and then you won't feel 'tainted' or 'betrayed'.

Celebrities who have not yet fallen under the Yewtree spotlight I still enjoy, but only superficially, mainly because of the content of their programmes. And I'm not talking about the awful Strictly Come Glitterball/Ballroom/Disco thingy either.

 

[Johnuk123]

This trial has highlighted that if you accept someone at face value, then you were born foolish and are a fool yourself. Trust nobody, and then you won't feel 'tainted' or 'betrayed'.

So you would advocate to distrust your own parents or children ?

 

[Whistler40145]

I've always thought Rolf Harris was odd.

If you destroy all of Rolf Harris's artwork do also destroy all recordings with Stuart Hall?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Johnuk123]

I've always thought Rolf Harris was odd.

If you destroy all of Rolf Harris's artwork do also destroy all recordings with Stuart Hall?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never thought he was odd, or Savile to be honest but when you see old bits Of Savile on the telly he does look weird to say the least.

Should everbody who owns a Gary Glitter record be forced to destroy it ?

You can't rewrite history.

 

[Greenback]

Everything connected to Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris must be obliterated from history. Immediately/

Exterminate, exterminate.

Seriously, isn't it enough that these people are now disgraced and reviled for what they have done (in Savile's case) alleged to have done?

 

[Johnuk123]

Everything connected to Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris must be obliterated from history. Immediately/

Exterminate, exterminate.

Seriously, isn't it enough that these people are now disgraced and reviled for what they have done (or in Savile's case) alleged to have done?

You're right about Savile in law he is actually innocent and despite what the media say there are no victims of Savile.

Alleged victims sure but of course many of those are liars and opportunists who always surface when money is the goal.

 

[ExRes]

You're right about Savile in law he is actually innocent and despite what the media say there are no victims of Savile.

Alleged victims sure but of course many of those are liars and opportunists who always surface when money is the goal.

I can't believe you posted that, how can you possibly state that there are no victims of Savile ?

You know exactly what the media know unless you happen to have been a personal friend of Savile and accompanied him everywhere throughout his life, of course there will be opportunists and liars, there always are, but please don't make such rude and unfounded sweeping statements

 

[Johnuk123]

I can't believe you posted that, how can you possibly state that there are no victims of Savile ?

You know exactly what the media know unless you happen to have been a personal friend of Savile and accompanied him everywhere throughout his life, of course there will be opportunists and liars, there always are, but please don't make such rude and unfounded sweeping statements

I say again there are no victims of Savile only alleged victims, it is very simple.

You become a victim of the perpetrator once they been convicted, Savile is dead he won't ever be convicted of any crime.

It is only because he's dead that the media use the word victim if he was still alive they would say alleged victim.

In a murder for instance the dead person is a victim but not necessarily of the accused until that person gets convicted.

 

[Greenback]

I can't believe you posted that, how can you possibly state that there are no victims of Savile ?

You know exactly what the media know unless you happen to have been a personal friend of Savile and accompanied him everywhere throughout his life, of course there will be opportunists and liars, there always are, but please don't make such rude and unfounded sweeping statements

Savile died before any prosecution could be brought against him. That means, as was said, that he was never convicted of any crime. Without a conviction, in law at least, there are no victims, despite the terminology used by the media.

Of course, in all other senses of the word they are victims, just not technically.

 

[Johnuk123]

Savile died before any prosecution could be brought against him. That means, as was said, that he was never convicted of any crime. Without a conviction, in law at least, there are no victims, despite the terminology used by the media.

Of course, in all other senses of the word they are victims, just not technically.

Absolutely that's what I said, I fully accept it is a technicality but a very important one.

The term victim would never be used before a conviction in a trial.

 

[Greenback]

Absolutely that's what I said, I fully accept it is a technicality but a very important one.

The term victim would never be used before a conviction in a trial.

Indeed, I was replying to ExRes and agreeing with what you said!

 

[Johnuk123]

Indeed, I was replying to ExRes and agreeing with what you said!

I think he thought I was saying Savile had never done anything wrong, the large amount of accusations say otherwise, most of them will probably be true.

 

[meridian2]

So you would advocate to distrust your own parents or children ?

Well you asked the question so why not provide the answer.:roll:

Sardonic hat off: I don't trust celebrities beyond what they show on TV. Their private lives are of no interrest to me whatsoever.

They don't even interest me to the point they are worthy of my trust anyway.

As regards Savile, just because someone has died doesn't mean the course of jurisprudence becomes disrupted. Victims came forward, alleged yes, but they are taken with the same degree of seriousness if he were alive.

Do not exonerate him because he's dead. Equally, do not praise him. It would be unjust either way, but that doesn't mean the CPS or the police no longer have a job to do.

 

[Johnuk123]

As regards Savile, just because someone has died doesn't mean the course of jurisprudence becomes disrupted. Victims came forward, alleged yes, but they are taken with the same degree of seriousness if he were alive.

Do not exonerate him because he's dead. Equally, do not praise him. It would be unjust either way, but that doesn't mean the CPS or the police no longer have a job to do.

I agree with all that I was just pointing out a technicality in the victim tag.

 

[Greenback]

I don't think anyone is exonerating or praising Jimmy Savile. It's a fact that the word alleged should be used because he was never convicted of anything.

 

[talltim]

I would suggest that victim is used in language more in the non-legal way than in the legal way.
If someone has had something happen to them, they are a victim whether it has been legally proved or not. Whether they are to be believed is a different matter.

 

[Greenback]

It is normally used in that way, that's true, which is why references to Savile's victims can be found all over the media.

Technically, though, it is correct that those who say they were abused are not classed as victims in the proper legal sense. It was also, therefore, correct to mention it.

 

[Geezertronic]

I find it difficult to understand how they can determine the true alleged victims from the spongers & liars in the case of Jimmy Savile. Given these alleged offences occurred 20-30-40 years ago, some of the specific details mentioned by the accusers that I have heard seem to be too specific in detail. Not to say that this cannot be the case which the jury in the Rolf Harris trial would have had to take into consideration when reaching their guilty verdict (based on the prosecution and defence eveidence presented), but I just wonder how the spongers & liars are weeded out from the true alleged victims?

 

[ExRes]

My post was made for the quite simple reason that I believe it is appallingly rude and insensitive to claim there are no victims, I happen to know someone who was abused as a child, as her abuser is now dead, thankfully, does that mean she is not a victim because he can't be taken to court ?

 

[meridian2]

My post was made for the quite simple reason that I believe it is appallingly rude and insensitive to claim there are no victims, I happen to know someone who was abused as a child, as her abuser is now dead, thankfully, does that mean she is not a victim because he can't be taken to court ?

Unfortunately, it's not up to you or me to decide if it is 'rude and insensitive'. The process has begun and is continuing, and those involved know far more about this case than you or me. All we're doing is speculating.