The 12 year old was friends with Clifford's daughter. How in earth were the parents to know he was a predatory paedophile? He was the amiable father figure, I would have thought. Stop victim blaming, it's obscene.
Obscene??
I feel I'm labouring this point and I really don't want to as it is too obvious for words.
I realize the parents didn't know he was a sex pest! And if the daughter was with them, then obviously it wouldn't have looked so odd.
I'm not victim blaming at all. How on earth could I or would I be blaming a 12 year old girl!
I feel I'm labouring this point and I really don't want to as it is too obvious for words.
I realize the parents didn't know he was a sex pest! And if the daughter was with them, then obviously it wouldn't have looked so odd.
I'm not victim blaming at all. How on earth could I or would I be blaming a 12 year old girl!
Sorry, that comment was out of order, I apologise.
It's just that, if you were on holiday, and a friend's dad offered to take your child and his own child into the jacuzzi, you wouldn't immediately think he had an ulterior motive, would you?
If I may answer, it seems that the two families had made friends on the holiday, as families often do, and the victim's parents would have been reassured by the expected presence of the victim's same-age holiday friend, i.e. Clifford's daughter. I think you are making unwarranted assumptions when you criticize the victim's parents, especially when we haven't been told all the details - e.g. do we even know that it wasn't in an open area with full public access rather than behind closed doors? I think not. I can't see a problem with the parents' decision, except in hindsight.
I really don't think I was actually criticizing the girls parents. As I said, the only one to be blamed is the one who carried out the crime.
Though the only unwarranted assumptions I made is with regards to where the assault took place - i.e. behind closed doors, or in an open area.
I had assumed it would have been in a private enclosure to make him able to carry out the assault. Meaning it would have been too dangerous for him to do out in the open, but of course as you said, noone knows that as yet.
Sorry, that comment was out of order, I apologise.
It's just that, if you were on holiday, and a friend's dad offered to take your child and his own child into the jacuzzi, you wouldn't immediately think he had an ulterior motive, would you?
Maybe today people may think more about stuff like pedos ect but back then they didn't.
It does make you wonder people today moan about that you (well moreso Men) can't do anything and everybody is looking for pedoes on every corner
Makes you wonder what is best is it better to be trusting and not assume that every man on the street is a potential pedo or not to trust anybody at all.
It is a no win argmunt if someone asked if someone else's child could come with them and their own child/children and that person refused it would be said that they were been over protective and pedos are not everywhere --if you said yes and something happened the same people would be saying "Why the hell would you let someone else near your child don't you know the dangers"
Sorry, that comment was out of order, I apologise.
It's just that, if you were on holiday, and a friend's dad offered to take your child and his own child into the jacuzzi, you wouldn't immediately think he had an ulterior motive, would you?
Thanks, apology accepted
I probably wouldn't have assumed he had an ulterior motive straight away, especially if he had a wife with him, and looked to be the typical family man....
I'm trying to envisage that happening, and it's difficult now as I know what he did!
Although I think if had made friends with them as a lone male, I don't know. Personally, maybe I'd be a bit suspicious, but tbh I am really just surmising now...
Originally I had thought that MC had simply gone up to the girls parents and asked if she wanted to go with him into the Jacuzzi....that was why I was finding it so hard to imagine them agreeing to it....
A very important reminder, please do not discuss anything in the Rolf Harris trial when it starts tomorrow until the verdict is reached or this thread may have to be locked.
Report on him arriving at court today but nothing about proceedings, have they not started yet or is there a media blackout?
Maybe today people may think more about stuff like pedos ect but back then they didn't.
It does make you wonder people today moan about that you (well moreso Men) can't do anything and everybody is looking for pedoes on every corner
Makes you wonder what is best is it better to be trusting and not assume that every man on the street is a potential pedo or not to trust anybody at all.
It is a no win argmunt if someone asked if someone else's child could come with them and their own child/children and that person refused it would be said that they were been over protective and pedos are not everywhere --if you said yes and something happened the same people would be saying "Why the hell would you let someone else near your child don't you know the dangers"
It makes me glad I don't have children. I think I'd be perpetually suspicious of everyone and anyone. Whenever I'm babysitting my little niece, I have my heart in my mouth every time she announces she's off to play at a friend's house - I insist on going there with her and seeing what the parents are like, before I agree.
But I'd rather be Awful Aunty Frankie than a lackadaisical person who allowed some bloke to destroy my niece's life.
Report on him arriving at court today but nothing about proceedings, have they not started yet or is there a media blackout?
It was just jury selection today. The judge dismissed any potential jurors who had friends or relatives in Australia, or knew anyone who would be visiting there in the next 3 months, presumably because the media over there are reporting a lot more than the british press would be able to. If you're wanting to discuss the trial you'd be better off looking at australian discussion forums.
Report on him arriving at court today but nothing about proceedings, have they not started yet or is there a media blackout?
It was jury selection today, from what I've read. Also, I read that tomorrow's session is going to be devoted to some sort of argument over legal issues, with Rolf not even required to be present that day. So the real action won't start until Thursday, it seems.
On Rolf aren't some of the alleged offences supposed to have happened in Australia if so does one trial cover both or will there be a separate trial in Australia and if convicted in both where will he serve his sentence?
It was just jury selection today. The judge dismissed any potential jurors who had friends or relatives in Australia, or knew anyone who would be visiting there in the next 3 months, presumably because the media over there are reporting a lot more than the british press would be able to. If you're wanting to discuss the trial you'd be better off looking at australian discussion forums.
Don't know if this is the right thread for that. People want to see Rolf get off and will be mitigating all over the place for him.
You can't decide without knowing the facts! I still feel that many of the public are uneasy about the time lag between offence and court and the accuracy of the memory.
Stuart Hall is also back in court charged with further multible rapes of the same person. He did not look happy hauled into court in his handcuffs.
You can't decide without knowing the facts! I still feel that many of the public are uneasy about the time lag between offence and court and the accuracy of the memory.
1) I haven't decided anything about the case, I know zero about any evidence being presented as I'm sure is the case for most everyone here. 2) They seem to be uneasy when it's someone they like, inconsistencies and questionable elements go out the window if it's a sleaze ball like Mr. Clifford.
There's no point in discussing the ongoing rolf harris trial here. It will be deleted in case it affects the judicial process. A quick google of google.com.au will give you more info than you'd get in the british press, and those who want to discuss it would probably be better off with a site like websleuths.
Judges messed up here with sentencing, and yes I've read the report. Not on the underage stuff of course, but the "grooming" of females 16+.
From the report:-
42. In 1986 an 18 year old dancer and part time model, having been told by you that she had something quite special for a career in films and mentioning a
particular film for which she might be suitable, was persuaded to come to your
girlfriend’s flat in Kingston to have photographs taken by Barry Ryan.
43. She told the court that she now understood that you were grooming her. After
the session and when the two of you were on your own you exposed your penis
and asked her to touch it to make it get bigger. It freaked her out so she got up
and left
Where's the crime here?
44.When you met a 16 turning 17 year old interested in getting into modelling, she told you about sexual abuse she had suffered at her father’s hands. You
therefore knew she was vulnerable. With her you played an elaborate game
making her go over to Fenwicks to receive a call purportedly from a film
director but in fact from you. Having asked her to discover what your Achilles
Heel was it led to you exposing your penis to her and eventually to you taking
her to the lavatory at your office and making her masturbate you until you
ejaculated over the toilet.
45. Later you told her that you had arranged for her to be taken by someone else,
who either pretended to be or was a film director interested in her for a part in a
film, to his home. This other person put his arm round her and tried to kiss her. She told the court that was the only thing you ever did to further her career.
Again, where is the crime here? A girl niave girl getting played is all I see. Immoral, yes? Illegal, no!
You took an 18 year old on as your receptionist. You asked her to masturbate you on two or three occasions and she felt that she had no choice but to
comply. You ejaculated into her hand and tissues. You fondled her breasts.
You asked her to give you oral sex in exchange for being taken to meet David
Bowie.
She didn't get to meet David Bowie so he's committed a crime?
I bump this thread as there was people at work talking about this case who said the girls in question were just after compensation. This wasn't blokes having the conversation, it was actually females, which surprised me.
I think he will ultimately see his sentenced reduced.
I presume it will be on the basis of the sentencing being consecutive, whereas pretty much everyone else has got concurrent sentences.
I don't think it matters much what the sentence is. The key point is that he was found guilty.
I notice one of the recent posts days his wife has now divorced him. IIRC, wasn't she formally his PA. I would have thought in that position she would have already known what he was like - it would appear not.
Comments
I feel I'm labouring this point and I really don't want to as it is too obvious for words.
I realize the parents didn't know he was a sex pest! And if the daughter was with them, then obviously it wouldn't have looked so odd.
I'm not victim blaming at all. How on earth could I or would I be blaming a 12 year old girl!
It's just that, if you were on holiday, and a friend's dad offered to take your child and his own child into the jacuzzi, you wouldn't immediately think he had an ulterior motive, would you?
I really don't think I was actually criticizing the girls parents. As I said, the only one to be blamed is the one who carried out the crime.
Though the only unwarranted assumptions I made is with regards to where the assault took place - i.e. behind closed doors, or in an open area.
I had assumed it would have been in a private enclosure to make him able to carry out the assault. Meaning it would have been too dangerous for him to do out in the open, but of course as you said, noone knows that as yet.
Maybe today people may think more about stuff like pedos ect but back then they didn't.
It does make you wonder people today moan about that you (well moreso Men) can't do anything and everybody is looking for pedoes on every corner
Makes you wonder what is best is it better to be trusting and not assume that every man on the street is a potential pedo or not to trust anybody at all.
It is a no win argmunt if someone asked if someone else's child could come with them and their own child/children and that person refused it would be said that they were been over protective and pedos are not everywhere --if you said yes and something happened the same people would be saying "Why the hell would you let someone else near your child don't you know the dangers"
I probably wouldn't have assumed he had an ulterior motive straight away, especially if he had a wife with him, and looked to be the typical family man....
I'm trying to envisage that happening, and it's difficult now as I know what he did!
Although I think if had made friends with them as a lone male, I don't know. Personally, maybe I'd be a bit suspicious, but tbh I am really just surmising now...
Originally I had thought that MC had simply gone up to the girls parents and asked if she wanted to go with him into the Jacuzzi....that was why I was finding it so hard to imagine them agreeing to it....
Report on him arriving at court today but nothing about proceedings, have they not started yet or is there a media blackout?
But I'd rather be Awful Aunty Frankie than a lackadaisical person who allowed some bloke to destroy my niece's life.
It was just jury selection today. The judge dismissed any potential jurors who had friends or relatives in Australia, or knew anyone who would be visiting there in the next 3 months, presumably because the media over there are reporting a lot more than the british press would be able to. If you're wanting to discuss the trial you'd be better off looking at australian discussion forums.
It was jury selection today, from what I've read. Also, I read that tomorrow's session is going to be devoted to some sort of argument over legal issues, with Rolf not even required to be present that day. So the real action won't start until Thursday, it seems.
Which would you recommend?
You can't decide without knowing the facts! I still feel that many of the public are uneasy about the time lag between offence and court and the accuracy of the memory.
Stuart Hall is also back in court charged with further multible rapes of the same person. He did not look happy hauled into court in his handcuffs.
From the report:-
Where's the crime here?
Again, where is the crime here? A girl niave girl getting played is all I see. Immoral, yes? Illegal, no!
She didn't get to meet David Bowie so he's committed a crime?
I bump this thread as there was people at work talking about this case who said the girls in question were just after compensation. This wasn't blokes having the conversation, it was actually females, which surprised me.
http://news.sky.com/story/1272430/max-clifford-lodges-sex-crime-sentence-appeal
I think he will ultimately see his sentenced reduced.
True. At his age though, it's probably not going to worry him that his career is over.
I presume it will be on the basis of the sentencing being consecutive, whereas pretty much everyone else has got concurrent sentences.
I don't think it matters much what the sentence is. The key point is that he was found guilty.
I notice one of the recent posts days his wife has now divorced him. IIRC, wasn't she formally his PA. I would have thought in that position she would have already known what he was like - it would appear not.
Hes probably lost his fortune too.