feeling uneasy about Rolf Harris stuff...

[gettingridiculous]

I feel a bit uneasy about writing this. But something about the reporting of this makes me feel uncomfortable. Firstly, I want to make clear that I am absolutely satisfied with the fact that this man has been brought to trial, tried by a jury and found guilty. The sentence I think is appropriate given that he is approaching the end of his life - 10/20 years ago, I would argue that it would have been too lenient.

But I hate him turning from a man who cried at puppies to this evil villain. I think it distorts the reality and doesn't help people cope with being presented by inappropriate behaviour. I don't think, personally, that he deliberately forged this persona of funny, friendly guy to hide a devious intent to do bad. I think those two sides of his personality just co-existed. Some complex mental capacity enabled him to live a life as a "decent" human being and manage to do those deviant things in a pocket that was compartmentalised and set aside. I accept a certain societal mindset probably legitimised some of his sexist behaviour but the child abuse?

I think the complexity of most abuse cases is that the awful behaviour sprung out of nowhere (in the eyes of the victim), no-one wanted to believe it (victims especially) and it was allowed to continue because no one felt they had the power to deal with it.

Some recent posts about this really chimed with me. How it's exactly the fact that he was a "lovely" man made it all the more shocking. But that's who is responsible for most of abuse - the friendly uncle, the father, the priest, doctor, nun etc,,,,

Saville I think is an abberation in terms of the level of assistance he indavertantly (?) received from the NHS, BBC, church organisations etc...

I think most of the damage is done by people as seemingly "harmless" as Rolf Harris.

Any of this make sense?

I don't actually know the details, I know he is a sexual abuser and thankfully has been convicted - I seem to be in the minority having no interest in knowing the details.

But yes, I agree with your points.

He's not a monster, he, like the vast majority of sexually abusers, is pathetic and selfish and happily bought the idea (prevelant even in non-abusers) that a mans sexual desires need to be acted on.

It's made you suspicious of trusting your 'instincts', that you added up RH 'the man' from what you heard from other people (talking about him in the media) and what you saw of him yourself, and found out that 2 + 2 comes to 5.

If you thought he was a nice bloke, you can't help but wonder who else is deceiving you?

But he's not even 'real', he's only a personality, and all celebs 'lie' to put themselves across as they want to be see. People in RL do it all the time too, not to hide devious shit necessarily, but you're different people in each role you play (like you don't act the same with your children as you would down the pub).

Lots of people hide lots of stuff in plain sight too (which was the worst bit about RH for me, that he got off on doing it in front of other people) it can make you question yourself when things aren't as you sussed them to be.

Which would make YANBU, I think.

Yes it does.

A vicar I know is currently doing time for child abuse. And yet, I can't deny the support he was to my mother over the years, during her crisis of faith during my childhood, and in more recent years, after my father died. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be doing time for what he did, because of course he should, as he wrecked those girls lives - but I don't think it can totally negate where he did good as well, even if that makes me feel uncomfortable (and it does.)

Humans are complex beings, and none is wholly good nor wholly bad, which is what makes it difficult. As you say, it is the "harmless" people who are commit many of these crimes. It's far easier to know just how to react if you see someone in black and white terms.

And it is difficult to get your head round the fact that people can be genuinely nice at the same time as committing this type of offence.

I actually think RH doesn't believe he's done anything wrong, justifying it as if what he was doing was so wrong why did nobody pick him up on it over so many decades? The children/women enjoyed it, which is why they didn't challenge him at the time/afterwards, he was 'only' groping it's not like he's a rapist or anything, loads of other people do it too/accepted at the time etc etc (these are things I think he's thinking, not what I think are true)

I agree. That's the problem with abuse - it's not the evil, wicked kidcatcher type of figure. It's actually everyday, ordinary, people including some much loved people. We actually shouldn't demonise these people because it makes the problem seem more unreal and extraordinary than it is. It's actually very prevalent and, sad to say, an ordinary reality for many.

This lovely man was getting sexually aroused looking at images of children getting horribly abused. I know it's hard to square that with the image of him as a kind, warm, funny man but that is the reality. Child abusers are not, as the media would have us believe, monsters, they are everyday people. Your work colleague, your friend, your brother, that bloke down the pub that makes you laugh. That's why it's so shocking and so hard to accept..,

I suppose also what's bugging me is this sense that this happened in the "showbusiness" world so that meant that all the people working in the same sphere that "worked" with him were made to feel "privileged". So the make-up artist was supposed to feel grateful that she worked in this rarefied world and that she should therefore "put up" with a certain amount of shit, This sense that there was a position that you occupied that meant that you needed to negotiate what was and wasn't acceptable. I think this is the crux.

I think we all negotiate a working persona whether we work in Tesco, the BBC or Spearminto Rhino. Some of those environments expect a certain lattitude in what is "normal".

My DS asked me who Rh was today because we were in a cafe when the news was on. I told him that a person who I found entertaining as a child, had turned out to be a liar and someone who had treated children and grown ups badly. I realised then that the main thing i wanted to communicate was that you trust no one you always communicate when anything you've seen, felt or experienced has made you feel uncomfortable or unusual. I try and stress that it doesn't have to be a bad thing, just that it.s good tooshare when something feels out of the norm. Then you can talk about it.

I also don't think RH's daughter should be castigated for seemingly standing by her father. If the general public feel duped by him, can you imagine what she's feeling now??

When he was crying at puppies (acting) he had a cat that he wouldn't allow in his house due to her age and had a few accidents and the neighbours had to feed her so she wasn't neglected. Lovely bloke.

YANBU. I see what you're saying and I agree. There are often (not always, but often) two sides to an abuser's personality that's why their wives and daughters NEVER believe they did it. Because they know the good side and refuse to believe that good and bad can co-exist. Those who only see the bad side and don't believe good and bad can co-exist are equally wrong.

Who's castigating his daughter?

Adulation does funny things to people (does the job that make them like that or are people like that are drawn to the job? There's a children's doctor (bbc link) in court at the min for sexual offences, how did that come about and how was it missed for so long?), celebs wanting to trade on the 'privilege' of their person is just a power/control thing, which is really what abuse is all about.

Some people get off on having power over other people and vulnerable people are easy targets for their depravity, it's a disturbing subject.

There was a bit on another thread about it gertie, and possibly in the media like in the comments at the end of a news article?

That is an excellent point. I wonder whether, because sexual assault disgusts us so much, we want to be totally removed from people who abuse, even to the extent that we want to think of them as a different species almost. It's easier to imagine them as monsters who have monster brains and their own monster reasoning, not anything like ours is or could ever be.

Of course that's not to dilute what he's done - none of us are implying that - but it does make you think, doesn't it? It can't really be that black and white. e.g. 'Normal' or 'Monster'. No one likes guilt. We do justify things to ourselves, don't we? I wonder whether that's what RH did, to the extreme.

Interesting thought, for sure.

There is no designated borderline where the good live on one side and the bad on the other. I would wholeheartedly support any research project that spent a decent amount of time interviewing RH. Try to establish where his moral compass was when he was suddenly alone in a lift with a young fan or in a position to congratulate a child at a sports event (when his hands wandered). How did he come out the other side of that moment and then sign an autograph or make a joke, feel like a decent human being etc.

I am slightly conflicted because I have a distinct memory of his swimming public information films in the 70s where he splashed around in a rubber ring in a swimming pool, My brothers and sisters were quite a few years older than me and they said he was a "perv'. I think there must have been some stories about him back them that sunk into oblivion ( the media chose to let go?) But I forgot about that when he did Animal Hospital of course.

RH was a clever artist not a lot else.
Not funny and his songs were shite.
That 'funny' he made about saying 'I never touched her' was not funny in the slightest, not even back in the day.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think its Rolf specific. With most of these cases or any sort of abuse or criminal cases.

As a society we seem to need to put people in boxes, two of those being good and bad. We talk about a moral compass and people doing good things but still being a bad person and vice versa.

I think the reality is that people are just people and one individual can be as capable of the two extremes. You can see it on mn all the time, someone who is totally soft on one issue and aggressive on another, everyone has their own individual values and interpretation of the 'rules'.

I think we all accept this truth mamapain but how on earth do we go about warning our children without freaking them out unduly? Or is it better to freak our children out than risk not warning them at all?

I never used the "bogey-man" argument on any of my children but how the hell do I explain "sexual abuse" to a 5 year old?

You don't explain it to a five year old.
You teach him gently to avoid people you don't feel comfortable with and chat about everything so if he needs to tell you something is odd or something has happened then he will.
Teach him not to keep secrets.

Most people really aren't abusers.

Exactly abusers are someones, brother husband, father, the teacher who help you pass that exam or the vicar you'd have let mind your toddler (this still makes me shiver). Ordinary people, living ordinary lives. For some it's a obvious sham. The vicar had a houseful of child porn.

For the other it was a naughty grope, a irresistible urge if the oportunity arose. He died without any idea of the lasting harm his being a 'bit naughty' did. Had he been dragged through the courts he still wouldn't have seen why there was such a grown woman should care about something so trivial 30 years later. His wife, DCs and victim and her family would have suffered far more than he did.

Well, you don't explain it in detail is what I meant to say, but they should know not to go off with strangers, you don't want to be scaring them that everyone else is going to hurt them.

Definitely not better to leave children without a warning, I would say encouraging them to tell you about anything that makes them feel uncomfortable is a good blanket warning, with maybe some extras like them telling you even if they think you'll be angry/upset, difference between nice birthday secrets/sinister secrets (if anyone has made you promise not to tell me something it's OK to break that promise and I'll never be angry with you kind of thing), basic privacy.

Most of it though can be you just being aware of who is around them or looking for causes if there are any changes in their behaviour.

Children's programs set them up with the idea that there are goodies and baddies, it's just firming that up into letting them down that not everyone is nice.

I don't think it's necessarily scaring DC into the idea that everyone is going to hurt them gertie, more about giving them the idea that if an adult did something they didn't like that you'd always take their side and you are able to make things better (if that makes sense).

Some sick fucks threaten the DC they're abusing by saying if they tell anyone they'll kill their Mummy and then they'd be responsible for her dying, so not telling anyone is really them trying to protect their Mum

It's trying to undermine anyone else's authority over them (even teachers )

"I agree. That's the problem with abuse - it's not the evil, wicked kidcatcher type of figure. It's actually everyday, ordinary, people including some much loved people. We actually shouldn't demonise these people because it makes the problem seem more unreal and extraordinary than it is. It's actually very prevalent and, sad to say, an ordinary reality for many."

Exactly this.

There's good and bad in everyone and good people sometimes do bad things.

A friend of mine was convicted of being a paedophile a few years ago after touching a school girl in public and having child porn on his computer. I've known him most of my life and would describe him as a gennerally good person who did a bad thing.

Paedophile tendencies are part of a person's sexuality and don't mean they are any more a bad person than if they were attracted to the same sex, tall people etc. It's how they act on those urges that matters.

hides thread