They may feel tainted because of it but they must be stupid if they are going on about their childhood enjoyment with hindsight now that he has been outed as a perv.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Rolf Harris
- Thread starter Minilad
- Start date
- Status
They may feel tainted because of it but they must be stupid if they are going on about their childhood enjoyment with hindsight now that he has been outed as a perv.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
David Barrett
Member
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2013
- Messages
- 554
What we must remember is that come what may these people are actors/entertainers and the act is often quite different from the real person, a real person who can be "airbrushed" out at the drop of a hat. Of smart appearance and always smiling in front of the audience,
"Who'd have thought that" we often hear said, wife battering, shoplifting and now, it seems, sex crimes.
What an unwary lot we are, one particular drubbing I received one lunch time from someone, well railway enthusiasts employed by the railway could often be on the sharp end of such wit, was that in his opinion trainspotters looked like paedophiles.
"Well" I replied,
"I'm not sure what either really looks like but I was once taught by a paedophile who looked like a teacher".
End of argument, but I learned about face values at the age of ten.
"Who'd have thought that" we often hear said, wife battering, shoplifting and now, it seems, sex crimes.
What an unwary lot we are, one particular drubbing I received one lunch time from someone, well railway enthusiasts employed by the railway could often be on the sharp end of such wit, was that in his opinion trainspotters looked like paedophiles.
"Well" I replied,
"I'm not sure what either really looks like but I was once taught by a paedophile who looked like a teacher".
End of argument, but I learned about face values at the age of ten.
ExRes
Established Member
I was referring to post #48 thank you
The Australian statistics I saw probably apply to the rest of the Western world as well - 93% of child abuse occurs within family and friendship contexts, including 72% of parental child abuse by mothers, so the answer is yes.
That's why protective behaviour education in schools these days no longer emphasises 'stranger danger' and tends to focus more on teaching children about the danger of keeping secrets.
Irony points to you for working your way around Godwin's Law by mentioning it
Or what about Caravaggio, who was a murderer?
In my opinion, the correct action to take at this time is to take the Harris paintings off the walls of galleries and put them in storage for the time being, not to burn them. Let a future generation have the conversation about whether the paintings are appropriate to keep instead of making an emotional decision in the heat of the moment, just as those who would have been appalled at Caravaggio's conduct at the time thankfully left his works around so that people could make that decision at a later date.
Thanks for the link to the article, Talltim. It was very interesting. William Mayne groomed me as a child
http://liberalengland.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/death-of-william-mayne.html
And I've realised on re-reading the books just how subversive they are. Read the bit about how William Mayne talks about a little girl Lesley and her sister laying warm and cold naked skin against one another - yuck. That's in one of the William Mayne books and I don't think it's a good idea to give them to your children - they were a technique of his for grooming. Think about the stories, stories I too loved as a child (which was how William Mayne got to know me - Penguin/ Puffin books introduced him to fans like me) The stories are about children separating and distancing themselves from their parents and having separate interior lives and keeping secrets from their parents. By encouraging me to think it was OK to be away from my Mum and Dad, to have a relationship with him rather than consulting my parents and to have secrets, he groomed me. And loads of other little girls too. So I'd be very tempted not to give those books to your children and leave them in the attic. I'm not keen on burning books but if you saw them as the pamphlets of a pedophile advertising his attractiveness I think one might be tempted to destroy them along with images of Rolf Harris, his raincoat, his "third leg" and his concealed limbs. I've read up on Eric Gill and his art recently. Only when I was naive and innocent, corruptible and groom-able could I look at his statue at the BBC and think it was art. Now I find it repulsive, a blatant sexualisation of onlookers. Rolf Harris preyed on the children who were lured to his art as were William Mayne's readers or Jimmy Savile's audience. I think to preserve, to honour or to regard the art or writings of these child sex offenders as separate from their crimes is to dishonour the victims. If we're not part of the solution then we're part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution, creating a better informed, safer society for my children.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That would be a very sensible approach.
GearJammer
Member
I suppose I will have to stop liking his songs and thinking how clever he was drawing live with a 2" paintbrush
Surely it doesn't matter what he done in his private life, if you like his song you like it, same with his painting, you can't deny, he was bloody good at it, probably still is, just because hes been convicted doesn't mean his songs are now sh7t and hes not a clever painter!
I do in a way feel sorry for Rolf, people say he might not live long enough to be released, but what about his wife, im wondering if she will last that long? I think for either one of them to die while hes locked up to be quite sad, if she dies before hes released then when he is released life will be completely different anyway.
ExRes
Established Member
Sorry, but how can you feel sorry for him?, his actions have been a totally selfish act for his entire adult life and now payback time has arrived, 40 or 80 years old, his time to pay for his crimes has finally arrived
I find it just too fantastic for words to believe that his wife has been unaware of his behaviour over all this time, while she's not been guilty of the actual crimes her inaction has allowed him to carry on with his abuse
His punishment has been a long time coming, I think that our feelings of sorrow should go to his real victims
Trouble is though, it very much does matter what you do in your private life if you're a celebrity. He knew the risks and gambled, and then lost. I know it sounds unjust but with the voracious appetite of our media combined with a police investigation set up to look at such claims, Harris was sat on a ticking time-bomb.
I agree we should feel sorry for Harris, as he failed with brazen naivety to exploit his position as a celebrity to the people he abused, and was caught.
Johnuk123
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,801
What inaction ? how on earth can you make such a statement, what do you know about his wife that nobody else does.
You shouldn't start throwing accusations around just because you believe something, in this country proof is needed not conjecture.
ExRes
Established Member
My comment was made on ACTUAL EXPERIENCES of this type of situation, experiences that I certainly don't intend to go into on a public forum but ones that have given me insight into this sort of thing
Only a fool would make accusations against someone without proof and I'm no fool when it comes to the area of child abuse and protection
Perhaps I didn't word my post entirely correctly, if so I apologise as it seems to have caused your rather emotional response
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Thank you, I thought I may have misworded my post but you seem to have understood my point
Johnuk123
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,801
Not emotional at all, your apology is accepted.
I think it's entirely plausible. Serial abusers like Rolf Harris will go to great lengths to plan their actions carefully so they can keep on doing it, including compartmentalising, i.e. keeping nice normal family part of life well separated from the celebrity part of life where he's doing his darker deeds. He would have known quite well that his wife finding out would probably have led to him getting divorced, which until about 25 years ago was scandalous for a public figure and would have limited his access to the celebrity world that enabled his criminal acts, so therefore he would have gone to whatever lengths necessary to keep his wife in the dark.
Or to put it more simply, the majority of paedophiles usually don't fit the stereotype of a creepy middle-aged man that "looks like a paedophile."
There also remains the very real possibility that the thrill of abusing his power as a celebrity and "successfully" getting away with it at the time would have been just as much a high (or probably even more) for Harris as the actual act, just like shoplifters generally do it for the thrill and not because they actually want whatever they're stealing.
It's for that reason that I don't buy into the claims he was molesting one of his daughter's friends while she was sleeping in the same room, it simply doesn't fit the pattern. Obviously I haven't looked into the evidence in detail and in the end it's something only Harris and the alleged victim know about for sure, but there's just something that doesn't sound right about that one.
If, and only if, his wife didn't know about it all, I do feel at least a little bit sorry for her. Discovering that her husband is both a monstrous predator and a convincing liar (he's apparently maintained his innocence to his daughter at least, which means he's probably done the same with his wife) would be quite traumatic and would leave her in the position of being publicly shamed and unable to trust anyone else with anything.
I'm willing to bet Alwen Harris still believes Rolf is innocent. Grooming one's supporters into continuing their support is part of the pedophile's tactics. She may very well believe that all this has been made up by victims to try to procure part of Rolf Harris Enterprises alleged £19 million. The Associates of pedophile's frequently revile the victims, sometimes vocally,in order to retrospectively justify their complicity in the pedophiles crimes and also (in the case of powerful or famous pedophiles) to continue their access to their money. Bruce Harris, Rolf's brother, is a case in point. His job is managing Rolf's money and he was convinced / determined / appeared to badger witnesses into finding his brother innocent. In the words of another famous witness " He would say that, wouldn't he?" Bindi too expects to be the recipient of his fortune and her son Marlon in turn. She herself has said having access to her father's fortune would be like winning the lottery. You don't give away a winning lottery ticket and render it worthless by testifying against the goose that lays the golden eggs, to mix metaphors.
Are these family supporters of Rolf Harris also victims, innocent of Rolf's crimes, or are they in fact complicit in perpetrating the crime, knowing their own future would be impoverished by his conviction?
To go back to the original question, if you think that Rolf Harris's family have assisted him through their naive support or by actively declaiming the victims then it behoves us to trash his work so that they cannot benefit from him. I'm not saying it's right but if his immediate family still maintain his innocence and that the real victims are "fortune hunters" then their avarice for Rolf's fortune is part of the problem. Should Bindi, Bruce and Alwen be financially advantaged by the art of a man whomw they supported in sexually abusing others by providing him a cloak of respectability?
I don't know the answer but it seems very similar to the outbreak of defenders of William Mayne when he was convicted (see William Mayne's obsequieous obituaries and the replies by some friend of his "Tosh" at "Liberal England" that try to suggest his conviction was unsound and he was really innocent)
Posters pretending William Mayne is innocent (as Alwen, Bindi and Bruce might believe of Rolf):
http://liberalengland.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/death-of-william-mayne.html
Brian Alderson, for example wrote a "supportive" obituary suggesting William Mayne's work is great and his conviction for pedophilia somehow minor and irrelevan. In the words of Calvin Trillin satirising how people still admire the work of Roman Polanski "He only raped one little girl"
I still don't have the definitive answer but the train-spotter in me suggests that, on careful examination of the facts, supporting the art or work or person of a pedophile condones the crime. What do others think?
Minilad
Established Member
What a magnificent post
backontrack
Established Member
Rolf Harris goes off to be sentenced:
'D'you know what it is yet?'
Seriously though, he deserves every minute of his sentence.
'D'you know what it is yet?'
Seriously though, he deserves every minute of his sentence.
It is indeed a moral minefield. However, I disagree with you on this point. Once it has been passed into the public domain, a work of creativity stands - should stand - on its own. I do not know much about the lives of most of the authors I read, but I can still appreciate their books; when I do find out more, it is generally disreputable. It could be argued that it is this unbalanced streak that contributes to creativity. Indeed, many of the creative people I have spoken to seem to turn it the other way, that being creative almost justifies their poor behaviour.
I would offer one qualification, though I cannot think of an immediate example. If the creative person makes explicit use of the abhorrent behaviour as a part of their creation, then the publication of that creation should be controlled appropriately. Would an intelligent reader of Mayne's books without knowledge of his background be left thinking something was wrong? If no, then fine; if yes, then the books should be controlled (not destroyed).
Geezertronic
Established Member
I'm not sure if such a word or phrase exists for this but I can only assume that people who are aware of family members committing such crimes either don't want to believe it themselves and hide from it & ignore it, or perpretrate in the acts themselves as well.
Not suggesting that any of this applies to Harris or others convicted though but maybe in the former case, some people may choose to ignore it as it's either more convenient for them to do so, or they are fearful of any repercussions
Absolutely, though I'm not quite sure what Rolf Harris' oeuvres have to do with his conviction?
They are works of arts in their own right, and they should not be tarnished by what he did.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I completely agree. I would also observe that if the creation in question was not something purely artistic, but - say - an equally creative technological innovation (Imagine if it had become a key component of computers or of trains before the creator's crimes had come to light) then I suspect that almost no one would be arguing that the thing the person had created should be abandoned, or that using it amounted to condoning the person's behaviour! Yet there wouldn't be any difference in principle from the situation of Rolf Harris's works of arts - merely a (large) difference in the level of inconvenience that would be caused by abandoning the creation.
OK I get that. good point. The scientific null hypothesis (remember, I like trains so you must forgive me) is that "If Rolf Harris had invented the cure for cancer we would all use it" Yes, we would. me too. In fact I can name many of my friends who ditched their left-wing principles in an instant when they discovered they we down the back of a long National Health queue and went private or put their darling Jocastas and Quentins in some private school when they found out what the results of their inner-London comprehensive were. Mea Culpa too.
But may I play devil's avacado for a moment? (yes, I know it's advocate. As a train spotter I reserve the right to think it's funny. Even if it isn't.)
So let me put it to you that the art itself might APPEAR Innocent but has a subliminal message? It is art, after all. I think we're all agreed that Rolf (sadly) did NOT invent the cure for cancer, the common cold or even a new improved thrust piece or a more durable lash adjuster (Remember I like trains and I'm the daughter and grandaughter and sister of an engineer. They are train components. but then, you all knew that.....)
No, Rolf left us with some landscapes ( can't complain) some portraits (I think they're quite good but the cognescenti tell me they're rubbish) and some songs, some of which are cringe-makingly racist (I now live in Australia. Trust me on this one.) and some of which are highly suspect eg Jake The Peg in his rain mac with a concealed "third limb"........
What are we going to do? Carefully have an expert pick through them and say Jake The Peg is unsuitable along with the racist songs and "Willy Willy Walkabout" (Yes, gentle reader, Rolf Harris DID have a songbook thus entitled.....) Shall we just preserve and buy the landscapes and the portrait of the queen and say " well, these seem harmless. Who cares if he lives on the profits when he comes out of prison? Let him continue to have a little bit of sanitised power and money he can bequeath to the family who were complicit in his crimes. Oh, let the victims have a teaspoon of cement and harden up! It's still good art!"
I'm not sure. look up Graham Ovenden. Before his conviction for pedophilia I saw his pictures. I thought "Oh this is art! It must be" ummmmm No. fairly clear this was the creative output of a pedophile, like Jake the Peg or all those interminable kangaroos with Rilf Harris's head.
The very existence of the art, the lauding and praising of the artist is part of the grooming.
And as for William Mayne, well, the books SEEM innocent until you read them knowing h e's a pedophile. Then his hideous narratives about children being encouraged to distance themselves om their parents, keep secrets and lay naked warm ad cold skin together are repulsive.
As my final devils avacado imagine your next-door-neighbour was one of Rolf's victims and you had one of his landscapes on your wall and she saw it. would that be in good taste?
All the victims are our neighbours and friends and the social preservation of Rolf Harris nd William Mayne's art is offensive to them. Now do we keep it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think this may be very pertinent, Geezertronic- there IS a psychological word for passively condoning evil acts in one's nearest and dearest. I think it's called "denial". I don't know much about psychology. Anyone better qualified care to enlighten us? Does "denial" fit Alwen, Bruce and Bindi Haris?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
How very kind, Minilad. You have only yourself to blame for my wordy replies as you have encouraged me by inflating my ego accordingly. *stares at trains to regain sense of insignificance next to feats of engineering*
I just have - and I wish I hadn't. Though I think this does show the complexity of the subject. Those pictures were undeniably pornographic and paedophile, the products of a very sick mind. Contrast that with Gill's statue of Prospero and Ariel. Is that actually as obvious.
I would throw another name into the mix - Lewis Carroll. Obviously fixated on Alice Liddell, and some of his photographs of her can be classed as "erotic". Does this affect our reading and enjoyment of the Alice books, which seem, to me, to have not a trace of that side of the author's mind?
I'm sorry about you feeling icky on seeing the Ovenden oeuvre. Before he was convicted they were art! Honestly, respectable people all agreed his naked prepubescent girls symbolised "innocence" and "integrity" and "knowingness". His work was loved as the mature adult bowing before the superiority of the naive child. Graham Ovendens ridiculously obvious pornographic pedophilia cost thousands and graced the gallery walls of the best London art houses. Now, when we look as informed observers, you are, quite right, Oswyntail, revolted. it was the Emporers New Clothes. How could we have missed the fact that Graham Ovenden was a disgusting dirty old man purveying the pornographic image as "art"? ( graham Ovenden is amazingly egotistic and completely unrepentent and brazenly claims he is "20 times cleverer than most people" including those who convicted him).
Rolf is the same. We use collective denial to ignore the obviously awful connotations of Jake the Peg and Willy Willy Walkabout and his overt racism. I can't view Hitler's art without calling to mind Auchwitz or Treblinka and to suggest "Hitler painted rather nice pictures of buildings and couldn't we keep them please and admire them as such?" is the social equivalent of disrespect for his victims.
To show my respect for the pain and suffering of ROlf's victims I may choose to revile all his creative output. As one of the girls who William Mayne groomed I feel physically sick when I see his books on library shelves.
Again, as Calvin Trillin says "he only raped one little girl". - get over it, victims, and see Roman Polanskis excellent films, William Mayne's brilliant books and Rolf Harris's amazing art for what it is: Completely acceptable to the rest of us.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Read Lewis Carroll and imagine as a reader you are one of Charles Dodds' victims. You then open up to your mother about rabbit holes and mad hatters and talking cards and strange puns and being big and being small and naked photographs.......," and mother simply puts the whole lot in the creative basket and labels it "imagination". Alice Liddel's mother is assumed to have finally worked out he truth and the danger nd terminated all contact etween her daughters and Lewis Carroll.
William Mayne told me he had a snake in his car he wanted to show me.....It turned out to be an ADDER (he said) - a calculator ( very new in the 1970s) but imagine if I'd talked of him showing me snakes... He could have easily confabulated my descriptions of "snakes" with my imagination and puns on calculators....after all, that's why he invited me and my friend to Thornton Rust."....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Read Lewis Carroll and imagine as a reader you are one of Charles Dodds' victims. You then open up to your mother about rabbit holes and mad hatters and talking cards and strange puns and being big and being small and naked photographs.......," and mother simply puts the whole lot in the creative basket and labels it "imagination". Alice Liddel's mother is assumed to have finally worked out he truth and the danger nd terminated all contact etween her daughters and Lewis Carroll.
William Mayne told me he had a snake in his car he wanted to show me.....It turned out to be an ADDER (he said) - a calculator ( very new in the 1970s) but imagine if I'd talked of him showing me snakes... He could have easily confabulated my descriptions of "snakes" with my imagination and puns on calculators....after all, that's why he invited me and my friend to Thornton Rust."....
Indeed, look at computers. The usage of them was not discontinued after Alan Turing was found to have comitted the 'crime' of being homosexual.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I think there are two separate issues there.
- Should the works of art be destroyed or people prevented from accessing them.
- Is it OK for Rolf to profit from them in the future?
You seem to be arguing for 'yes' and 'no'. I would argue the opposite - 'no' and 'yes'. And for me, a key factor is that, as far as I'm aware, the songs and works of art are not directly connected with Rolf Harris's crimes.
Take a different example. Suppose someone worked in a shop, and at the same time, but separately, was earning a lot of money pushing illegal drugs. If they got caught, then I suspect we'd both agree that, besides the normal jail sentence or whatever, the proceeds from the drugs trading should be confiscated (I think, though not certain, the law in the UK will allow that). That's on the basis that you shouldn't be able to profit from illegal activities.
But I hope you'd agree that *if* the sentence is being sent to prison, then there is no reason to additionally confiscate whatever the person earned working in the shop (assuming, hypothetically, you could distinguish which money was earned from what). Those earnings would have been completely legitimate.
You punish the person for his crimes, make sure he isn't profiting from his crimes, and that's it. I have no problem with any of that. And I also have no problem in principle with his being required to use some of his wealth to pay compensation to his victims. But you seem to be going beyond that, and saying that he, and his family (And remember, his family members have not been convicted of any crime), should additionally be prevented from making a living from the things he did that actually were legitimate. That seems to me to be going beyond reasonable law enforcement and reasonable punishment for a crime.
Now, go back to the first question: Should these songs/paintings be destroyed/removed from public access. My own view is that, on the whole, the only legitimate reason for that kind of censorship is if works are of a nature likely to incite people to hatred or to commit crime/violence/sexual abuse etc. (Or if they are libellous etc.) Some of the other examples you gave may well fit into that category, but as far as I'm aware Rolf Harris's works, on the whole, don't. They don't appear to have any connection with his crimes (beyond the rather indirect thing that his resultant celebrity status may have made it easier for him to commit them).
Of course many people (I suspect, a majority), because of their new knowledge of what Rolf Harris has done, will now feel unable to enjoy those works because of the association in their minds. Some people have said as much here. (And that alone will doubtless severely restrict any future earnings from those works!) Other people will see the works as completely separate from the crimes, and therefore may well be able to enjoy them, while still being completely opposed to what Rolf Harris did. (For what it's worth, I'm not yet sure which of those camps I fall into). Surely, both points of view are perfectly legitimate individual choices, and it would therefore be wrong for any Government etc. to interfere with those choices.
If you destroy all Rolf's works because of his crime, then, yes, you'll hurt him and his family. You'll also hurt all the innocent people who still like those works. And you'll slightly harm those from future generations who, would wish to learn about their history.
Obviously in that case I'd remove it, partly out of courtesy to the neighbour, and partly because I probably wouldn't want it there anyway in that situation (the association between the picture and actually knowing a victim would be too strong). But I don't see that changes any of the arguments. Lots of things are offensive to *some* people or inappropriate in some situations, but we get by perfectly well without banning them.
Last edited:
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? 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? 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? Surely we have a moral imperative to respect all women in society who gave fallen prey to such pedophile predators? Do we really think we should only offer a woman victim respect if she is personally known to us and willing to declare herself a victim?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not entirely sure this is comparable as homosexuality is really not like pedophilia. Yes, homosexuality was a crime in Turins day. Fortunately society now espouses the humanitarian view that this was not a form of abuse and decriminalised homosexuality. No matter how liberal society becomes in the future I think pedophilia will remain a crime of abuse predicated on power over a child victim whereas homosexuality between consenting adults is simply a sexual choice. Perhaps a more apt example is using the data gathered in concentration camps through, for example, twin experiments where twin children were subjected go two different states (one experimental, one control, the experimental state frequently amounting to physical abuse) then both were killed to record the data.
I believe that some medical discoveries are predicated on this data but I don't think anyone believes we should proudly print the abstracts of Mengelez's experiments divorcing the results from the victims.
Rolf used his art to captivate the children he preyed on, like the sweet-sellers in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Sweets are still delicious but to sell them from the same duplicitous cage deceptively decked as a sweet truck would be tasteless and vulgar.
Imagine how I feel every time I see William Mayne books on a bookshelf, in a library or advertised on the Internet. Should I simply "suck it up"?
ilkestonian
Member
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.
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.
- Status