To be surprised that the school are using a rolf harris song in the xmas play?

[mybeardisblack]

DS1 (yr 1) was singing the song his class are dancing to in the Xmas play, googled to check (he confirmed that it was the version). It's a rolf harris song. I appreciate he has not been convicted just charged, and that they are likely to have purchased a production some time ago...but still I would have thought they might have swapped it for something else?

Not going to complain but it made me a little , what do you think?

Guilty until proven innocent then?

I think the same as hipo.

I didn't even know he sang. I thought he just pretended to paint. I wouldn't care as I wouldn't notice

Not at all just thought it was a controversial choice

I asked something similar a few weeks ago - and got a pasting! Good Luck OP! Is it actually one of HIS songs or just one he sang? I love 2 Little Boys and so do my kids.

Eek Justforlaughs - ah well have my tin hat and flame proof knickers on! Just pondering really

I am more shocked posters didnt know he sang! jake the pake? 2 littie boys?

wouldn't bother me op as for now he's innocent.

It's an interesting question. If somebody is convicted of a despicable crime, does it mean their previously acclaimed/admired/worthy work can no longer be judged as such?

(Jake the pake?).

He hasn't been convicted yet.

I am having this dilemma too. My dc love Rolf Harris and to be honest so did I. It feels like a massive kick in the childhood that he may have done this.

But.

The songs are just great. Funny and witty and thought provoking some of them.

So we applaud the art (and Animal hospital) and talk about consent separately. Much like we do about Wagner. and if there is a more middle class post on MN today I claim my free goat

Vivacia pretty much the concensus on Gary Glitter (not that I was a fan anyway)

To be honest I wasn't sure if he was convicted or charged , which is terrible.

pretty much the concensus on Gary Glitter but not on Roman Polanski?

I have to admit that it has crossed my mind, what the Queen is going to do with the portrait he painted of her, if he is found guilty. Tbh, in her shoes, I'd be glad of the excuse to dump it!

vivacia It appears how we react to the art after the fact depends on how "worthy" and "cultural" the pieces were viewed as, to start with.

Roman "child rapist" Polanski is Proper Art, so people say "you shouldn't judge the art by the man". (Or at worst, that it wasn't rape. ) Gary Glitter is a pop misician, so we apparently can make the sacrifice here.

He might actually be innocent.

Everytime I read threads like this I wonder just how they manage to appoint an impartial jury!

They played a Rolf Harris song at a children's party we went to last week.
Lots of oooering and eyebrow raising from the parents.
Silly really.

You are right IamInvisible - media coverage and the way it influences trials is a whole other debate. I am not sure what the answer is to be honest.

I am a little surprised at my own initial reaction to be honest

Personally I feel much more about Polanski compared to Rolf Harris.

I am aware that this is probably nonsense.

yabvu - he hasnt yet been convicted & what harm will singing the song do?! do you always get worked up about such trivial matters?! its a fucking song ffs!

is it jake the pake? that's what it sounds like!

It's Jake the Peg isn't it?

jake the PEG!

The bloke has not been convicted of anything.

there are probably hundreds of examples of composers/singers who have been convicted of something, but it doesn't mean we can't enjoy their music. Let's face it, who pays for music now?

Jake the Peg ...with his extra leg - see it rhymes

Polanski was convicted of the rape of a child so I am not sure what they is about - except for Ralph not being convicted of anything