Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Rolf Harris charged with more sex offences

65 replies

AgaPanthers · 23/12/2013 04:34

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25489501

"Rolf Harris is facing three further prosecutions for sexual assault including one against girl "aged seven or eight", prosecutors have said.

The three counts are in addition to 13 alleged sexual offences which the entertainer was charged with in August.

The new counts are against females aged 19 in 1984, aged seven or eight in 1968 or 1969, and aged 14 in 1975.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said the allegations related to one existing complainant and two new ones."

OP posts:
HotheadPaisan · 28/12/2013 08:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

edamsavestheday · 28/12/2013 09:27

Math- the phrasing of the charge 'making' is a little misleading. It can mean 'downloading'. Still reprehensible but not physically being in the room when a child is being abused. (Although of course viewing the footage IS abusing children as it creates the demand for children to be abused and constitutes further abuse of the poor children in the pictures.)

MatildaWhispers · 28/12/2013 10:13

Is 'making' definitely even downloading though, I wondered if it could include drawing given he is an artist?

AmberLeaf · 28/12/2013 10:17

I hate this view that 'only' downloading images of child abuse isn't 'as bad' as actually physically abusing a child.

To be abused in that way as a child is awful, to know there are images out there, that are available to perverts to view forever more just adds to it.

mathanxiety · 29/12/2013 03:38

I agree, yes, it creates the demand, and also real children are abused for the voyeur's gratification -- makes no difference if they are in the room watching at the time or at a remote location years later watching. The real children suffered real damage and real pain and the punters wanted to see that.

AgaPanthers · 29/12/2013 18:20

Downloading may or may not increase supply of images, it isn't clear.

I think the most hard core paedophiles most likely trade images and videos among themselves, and they feed off each other.

Some of these images will make their way, free of charge, onto the wider internet, and I would guess at this level an image might be viewed thousands of people. The people on this level should not be viewing/downloading these images, but they are not on the same level as those who actually groom and molest children.

Also some cases may be borderline, e.g., 'nudist' images, which might feature young girls are I believe legal, but might be treated as such by the police. There are plenty of blurred lines of course, e.g., if you looked for legal images and found illegal images, then the illegal images would remain on your computer unless forensically wiped.

There are other things like images/videos where the performer is assumed to be 18+ but is later found to be underage. Pornography of an 18 year old with a petite figure, wearing a schoolgirl uniform, etc., is perfectly legal, whereas pornography of another person who looks older but is actually 17, would be illegal.

I'm not clear what the four counts relate to with respect to Rolf Harris, whether they are four images or more, and what kind of images/ages they are, so I couldn't comment further on that, it could mean anything from a large collection of young children being abused to some borderline images downloaded by mistake.

OP posts:
mathanxiety · 29/12/2013 22:51

lol @ downloaded by mistake...

Pimpf · 29/12/2013 22:56

Lets not forget, he is about to go on trial, he has not been found guilty.

AgaPanthers · 30/12/2013 00:48

It's very possible to download by mistake:

  • pop-up ads often contain porn, and it could be illegal, these ads are completely outside the user's control - this would be classed as 'downloading'
  • malware/viruses can use your computer to transmit illegal pornography, you would probably not be aware of this, but it would potentially be there and recoverable by forensics
  • you might search for something for purely innocent and wholesome purposes, but come across something illegal without your knowledge - again this is 'downloading'
  • you might search for something legal but pornographic, e.g., 18-year-old porn stars, and load that, but if it turns out the site was lying and the performer is underage, that is again illegal

All 'by mistake', and while we can be pretty sure that people convicted of molesting young children are dangerous paedophiles, possession of illegal pornography offers far less certainty.

OP posts:
NigellasDealer · 30/12/2013 00:53

agapanthers i am sorry but that is specious nonsense it is more or less impossible to download child porn 'by accident' or by 'searching for something for purely innocent and wholesome purposes'
AFAIK downloading child porn would take some fairly extensive searches and knowledge of the 'dark web' and would NOT just 'pop up by accident'.
your post sounds like a perve's court defence btw.

mathanxiety · 30/12/2013 01:48

Those are incredibly farfetched scenarios.

I agree with NigellasDealer.

DoYouLikeMyBaubles · 30/12/2013 01:51

It's just shocking. And it begs the question - who next?

mathanxiety · 30/12/2013 01:57

All the sites visited by someone on any given computer, and how frequently, will be traceable so any accidental visiting or downloading can easily be ruled out by investigators. Prosecution would be extremely foolish to go ahead without being able to show the frequency of visits to sites where pornography allegedly popped up, and would also be foolish to go ahead without being able to show that images were saved.

Solo · 30/12/2013 02:28

This has upset me too.

I hope he is found to be innocent.

NigellasDealer · 30/12/2013 02:30

while i appreciate that he is 'innocent until proven guilty' the CPS do not go ahead with these things unless they are pretty damn sure there is a v good case.
and think about that song - it actually spelt it out - Jake the peg?

AgnesBligg · 30/12/2013 02:34

The rumours about Rolf have circulated for 30 plus years. A close show-bizzie relative was anti-Rolf for this reason. I never knew why till now.

NigellasDealer · 30/12/2013 02:35

hmm there are a few anti-Rolf show bizzie types aren't there? remember that business with Lenny Henry? was it a jubilee celebration thing or something?

DoYouLikeMyBaubles · 30/12/2013 02:38

I don't think he'll be found innocent. Like nigella said CPS don't go ahead without evidence. It isn't like the fella off corries case, that was being accused by one woman. This is having child porn, and people coming forward.

zippey · 30/12/2013 02:39

Hothead- where do you get the 96% of accusers are telling the truth claim from? It sounds ridiculous. To say "we believe you" to someone we don't know and is potentially lying, is unhelpful.

Again I don't know of any trial where he has been found guilty of downloading child porn so my conclusion to this is that he hasn't done it. Also, downloading pics and actually abusing someone are very different crimes in terms of severity which is why the law deals with them differently. You get a harsher sentence for actual abuse.

I agree that you can download porn accidentally but I think the trial would take this into account.

His abuse trial starts next year and I'll wait to see what the outcome of this is.

horsetowater · 30/12/2013 02:41

God I wish these people that heard 'rumours' actually told the police about them before instead of simply tittle tattling amongst themselves.

Such duplicity.

DoYouLikeMyBaubles · 30/12/2013 02:42

I agree horsetowater. If these showbiz types had an idea why didn't they come forward, and possibly prevent future abuse.

NigellasDealer · 30/12/2013 02:46

well that is a good question baubles, same with Sa-vile if that Rancid woman knew about it why didnt she ever say anything? such duplicity yes, probably complicity too

AgnesBligg · 30/12/2013 02:46

I don't know the Lennie Henry thing. I just know I wasn't allowed as a small girl the opportunity to meet Rolf. Rellie put the blockers on it because he said Rolf was not a nice man. I appreciate that now.

AgnesBligg · 30/12/2013 02:47

horsetowater I so agree with you.

horsetowater · 30/12/2013 03:01

Agnes do you think your rellie might know something that the police might be interested in?