Rolf Harris arrested on sexual charges

[hurfdurf]

IMHO it's more likely than not ****** at the end of the day just two no-longer teenage mums who are struggling with their finances looking to make a quick buck at his expense because they once hugged him or something like that.

Part of rape culture is this insistence to deny that rape ever occurs and that rapists are innocent men trapped by evil women, because nice men couldn't possibly rape, only bad people rape.

 

[Suarez7]

Part of rape culture is this insistence to deny that rape ever occurs and that rapists are innocent men trapped by evil women, because nice men couldn't possibly rape, only bad people rape.

 

[McGray]

IMHO it's more likely than not ****** at the end of the day just two no-longer teenage mums who are struggling with their finances looking to make a quick buck at his expense because they once hugged him or something like that.

He's been charged with indecent assault and making indecent images of children

 

[Nate--IRL--]

Part of rape culture is this insistence to deny that rape ever occurs and that rapists are innocent men trapped by evil women, because nice men couldn't possibly rape, only bad people rape.

Part of the law is innocent until proven guilty.

Nate

 

[FoxEye]

Yes, lets think of the agony Rolf is going through, not the victims of sexual assault.

I didn't realise they'd found him guilty? So don't you mean alledged victims?

 

[The Dread Pirate]

Part of rape culture is this insistence to deny that rape ever occurs and that rapists are innocent men trapped by evil women, because nice men couldn't possibly rape, only bad people rape.

I'm not saying because someone seems nice they're incapable of rape but having met the bloke, his wife and having attended several events which he's been at and having some damn funny conversations with him he doesn't seem like the sort of man who would either harm a Child deliberately or otherwise and/or Cheat on his wife. That being said it is entirely possible I'm completely wrong but I find that very unlikely because he is such a nice bloke.

 

[Suarez7]

I'm not saying because someone seems nice they're incapable of rape but having met the bloke, his wife and having attended several events which he's been at and having some damn funny conversations with him he doesn't seem like the sort of man who would either harm a Child deliberately or otherwise and/or Cheat on his wife. That being said it is entirely possible I'm completely wrong but I find that very unlikely because he is such a nice bloke.

Has it ever occurred to you that coming across as a nice friendly guy is why sexual predators can get worked in with their victims in the first place, especially children.

 

[McGray]

Oh lord...

I hear Ian Brady was quite a hoot at dinner parties too.

 

[The Dread Pirate]

Has it ever occurred to you that coming across as a nice friendly guy is why sexual predators can get worked in with their victims in the first place, especially children.

I met him more than once as a child first time aged 3 second aged 7 the last time you could say I met him as a child was 11 and I never got abused... Perhaps I was just not his type, or perhaps it's all ******** who knows will wait for the verdict.

 

[McGray]

Maybe you should put yourself forward as a character reference?

 

[Suarez7]

I met him more than once as a child first time aged 3 second aged 7 the last time you could say I met him as a child was 11 and I never got abused... Perhaps I was just not his type, or perhaps it's all ******** who knows will wait for the verdict.

I'm pretty sure some children will have met him many more times than you and never received abuse. Do you really think he would carry this stuff out at a meet and greet?

 

[robgmun]

I don't think you quite understand the law surrounding making indecent images.

Enlighten us. Because wasn't there charges handed out for looking a images in facebook/twitter of fully clothed under-16 year olds?

Heck a few dozen of us could easily be charged by looking at the 12 or not quiz a few weeks ago on that blog. As it was minors in sexual poses

 

[arknor]

I met him more than once as a child first time aged 3 second aged 7 the last time you could say I met him as a child was 11 and I never got abused... Perhaps I was just not his type, or perhaps it's all ******** who knows will wait for the verdict.

harold shipman didn't murder all of his patients either

 

[Suarez7]

Enlighten us. Because wasn't there charges handed out for looking a images in facebook/twitter of fully clothed under-16 year olds?

Heck a few dozen of us could easily be charged by looking at the 12 or not quiz a few weeks ago on that blog. As it was minors in sexual poses

Looking at images doesn't fall under the same category as making them.

I highly doubt anyone has been charged for looking at the images you've said unless they have already been charged with similar things in the past or are being watched.

 

[robgmun]

Looking at images doesn't fall under the same category as making them.

Under the law looking/downloading them holds the same meaning as making them when it comes to CP. It's very well known

 

[Merlin5]

 

[Suarez7]

Under the law looking/downloading them holds the same meaning as making them when it comes to CP. It's very well known

No that would be possession of indecent images. Making indecent images is different, I think it's pretty easy just reading the two different titles of law why.

 

[oulton]

he has the look...

 

[robgmun]

No that would be possession of indecent images. Making indecent images is different, I think it's pretty easy just reading the two different titles of law why.

The "making" offence[edit source | editbeta]

Causing an indecent photograph of a child to exist on a computer screen is considered to be "making an indecent photograph of a child".
"A person who either downloads images on to disc or who prints them off is making them. The Act is not only concerned with the original creation of images, but also their proliferation. Photographs or pseudo-photographs found on the Internet may have originated from outside the United Kingdom; to download or print within the jurisdiction is to create new material which hitherto may not have existed therein." (R v Bowden (1999))
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 further amended the 1978 Act so as to increase the age of a child from 16 to 18; consequently, the 2003 Act also added a defence to cover the situation where an "indecent photograph of a child" was created by that child's partner. Because of the Bowden decision, it was also necessary to add a defence where it was necessary to make an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph for the purposes of a criminal investigation.
1.– (1) Subject to sections 1A and 1B, it is an offence for a person–
(a) to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or(b) to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or(c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or(d) to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs or intends to do so.

 

[spoffle]

I met him more than once as a child first time aged 3 second aged 7 the last time you could say I met him as a child was 11 and I never got abused... Perhaps I was just not his type, or perhaps it's all ******** who knows will wait for the verdict.

Do you judge everything based on whether it happened to you or not?

What a bizarre and pretendland way to look at the world.