Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

the sir jimmy savile obe thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Abuse doesn't occur in a vacuum. Looking at the ppl closest to the abuser is not blaming them. I thought it was quite clear in RH's case that he was abusing on his own, ie not in a group, not with another. This is not attributing guilt to family members, more trying to see the climate around him during & after all this. We can always refuse to look at anything upsetting, but discussion is not a bad thing. Personally I don't believe abusers r monsters & Ihave no wish to "monster" their ffamilies.
 
I'm not after someone to blame and hate but the dynamics of Rolf's family and his molesting are interesting.
You may not be after someone to blame and hate, but you're very clearly after someone (in addition to Harris) to judge.

ETA: And the truth is that you know fuck all about the dynamics of Harris's family. But that lack of knowledge isn't preventing you judging them.
 
Last edited:
Isn't that just sensible?

In light (as I mentioned earlier) of what Stuart Hall and his family got up to when it became obvious he was going to do time, and be the recipient of a lot of writs for damages, then it might not appear to be just sensible, it might appear to be "grasping", or an attempt to secure Harris's money from damages claims.
Obviously, anyone with an ounce of sense realises (as Stuart Hall did not) that "sorting out your financial affairs" in the light of imminent court cases against you, invalidates any arrangements you make, but some people don't realise that. :)
 
Last edited:
Rolf's website's finally gone... http://www.rolfharris.com/

On another point of compensation UK law would require a) proof that the claimant was physically in the presence of the defendant at time(s) when the abuse took place and b) that actual provable lasting damage had been incurred in the time from when the abuse occurred to date and compensation would relate to the degree of damage that had taken place. So that for instance Vanessa Feltz has said that he groped her on the TV programme but it would be difficult to argue that any lasting damage had taken place so that cases such as hers would be likely to fail whereas Bindi's friend's case would easily prove long term psychological damage which had profoundly affected her life and a judge would award compensation proportionate to the effect on her life as if she had never been abused and had been deemed to have lived a normal life. There is no element of punitive damages. So those that say there will be plenty of compo chasers coming out of the woodwork are likely misinformed as there will be a high level of proof required before any payment would be made and I would have thought that most of Rolf's supposed £12 million pound wealth will remain intact (assuming it is in investments other than Rolf related material whose value will surely be close to zero!?).

Creepy video

 
Rolf's website's finally gone... http://www.rolfharris.com/

On another point of compensation UK law would require a) proof that the claimant was physically in the presence of the defendant at time(s) when the abuse took place and b) that actual provable lasting damage had been incurred in the time from when the abuse occurred to date and compensation would relate to the degree of damage that had taken place. So that for instance Vanessa Feltz has said that he groped her on the TV programme but it would be difficult to argue that any lasting damage had taken place so that cases such as hers would be likely to fail whereas Bindi's friend's case would easily prove long term psychological damage which had profoundly affected her life and a judge would award compensation proportionate to the effect on her life as if she had never been abused and had been deemed to have lived a normal life. There is no element of punitive damages. So those that say there will be plenty of compo chasers coming out of the woodwork are likely misinformed as there will be a high level of proof required before any payment would be made and I would have thought that most of Rolf's supposed £12 million pound wealth will remain intact (assuming it is in investments other than Rolf related material whose value will surely be close to zero!?).
from the cache of rolfharrisentertainer.com:
"You know, when I surf through all the different sections of this site, I can't help thinking just how lucky I've been over the years, and what an amazingly varied career I've been able to enjoy.

I'm thrilled at continually having been able to find new things to do and new career paths to enjoy, and I'm constantly reminded of my Mum and Dad, who instilled into my brother and me the fact that we could do ANY thing we wanted to do in this life. I'm still constantly looking for new creative things to try. Long may that continue" ...

Rolf Harris
can't see it now mind except the cached version
 
Rolf's website's finally gone... http://www.rolfharris.com/

On another point of compensation UK law would require a) proof that the claimant was physically in the presence of the defendant at time(s) when the abuse took place and b) that actual provable lasting damage had been incurred in the time from when the abuse occurred to date and compensation would relate to the degree of damage that had taken place. So that for instance Vanessa Feltz has said that he groped her on the TV programme but it would be difficult to argue that any lasting damage had taken place so that cases such as hers would be likely to fail whereas Bindi's friend's case would easily prove long term psychological damage which had profoundly affected her life and a judge would award compensation proportionate to the effect on her life as if she had never been abused and had been deemed to have lived a normal life. There is no element of punitive damages. So those that say there will be plenty of compo chasers coming out of the woodwork are likely misinformed as there will be a high level of proof required before any payment would be made and I would have thought that most of Rolf's supposed £12 million pound wealth will remain intact (assuming it is in investments other than Rolf related material whose value will surely be close to zero!?).

Creepy video


One is not enjoying One'self @1:11
 
Rolf's website's finally gone... http://www.rolfharris.com/

On another point of compensation UK law would require a) proof that the claimant was physically in the presence of the defendant at time(s) when the abuse took place and b) that actual provable lasting damage had been incurred in the time from when the abuse occurred to date and compensation would relate to the degree of damage that had taken place. So that for instance Vanessa Feltz has said that he groped her on the TV programme but it would be difficult to argue that any lasting damage had taken place so that cases such as hers would be likely to fail whereas Bindi's friend's case would easily prove long term psychological damage which had profoundly affected her life and a judge would award compensation proportionate to the effect on her life as if she had never been abused and had been deemed to have lived a normal life. There is no element of punitive damages. So those that say there will be plenty of compo chasers coming out of the woodwork are likely misinformed as there will be a high level of proof required before any payment would be made and I would have thought that most of Rolf's supposed £12 million pound wealth will remain intact (assuming it is in investments other than Rolf related material whose value will surely be close to zero!?).

Creepy video


Think that's disturbing? Check this show out. How the very fuck was a show
like this ever allowed to go on?
 
Wow, that's pretty nasty. Really surprised that was allowed on air.
It was a different time.

In many ways, that's the horror of it - even back then, what Harris was doing was known to be unacceptable. But this kind of thing was mainstream TV and presumably considered quite all right.
 
It was a different time.

In many ways, that's the horror of it - even back then, what Harris was doing was known to be unacceptable. But this kind of thing was mainstream TV and presumably considered quite all right.


My point exactly in the thread on rolf harris..Tellyland back then seems to have been quite a place for anything from groping to rape and everyone was afraid to say or do anything.
I think or I hope that nowadays that things are very different. And I'd like to think that people are less intimidated.....hopefully the culture of silence has been burned to a crisp.
 
My point exactly in the thread on rolf harris..Tellyland back then seems to have been quite a place for anything from groping to rape and everyone was afraid to say or do anything.
I think or I hope that nowadays that things are very different. And I'd like to think that people are less intimidated.....hopefully the culture of silence has been burned to a crisp.
yeh cos whistle blowers are always respected and treated well
 
My point exactly in the thread on rolf harris..Tellyland back then seems to have been quite a place for anything from groping to rape and everyone was afraid to say or do anything.
I think or I hope that nowadays that things are very different. And I'd like to think that people are less intimidated.....hopefully the culture of silence has been burned to a crisp.
Not by a long chalk, sadly. Nor will it easily happen.

This is going to be a long battle, and one that will never be won: the day before Savile died, there will have been just as many people abusing others as there were back in the 1970s, etc. And the day the revelations about Savile came out, there will still have been just as many people abusing others. Perhaps these revelations may have stopped a few, as the realisation dawns that there is a way in which they can be caught (I bet most abusers never seriously thought that, simply by different unconnected victims testifying against them to corroborate their patterns of abuse, a conviction could result), but most will, I suspect, carry on.

The only way that abuse is going to be prevented is by continually sending the message to everyone that it's OK to disclose abuse, and people will listen, and that when someone tells us they're being abused, we have to take it seriously. We are still a long way from that - that culture of silence will always be waiting in the wings to rush back in and convince us that ignoring the problem and hoping it'll go away will be a good strategy.

Sexual abuse/assault says something about us that is deeply uncomfortable, and that is the primary reason for the "culture of silence" - everything else stems from there, in my view: we don't like to admit that someone whom we perhaps respect has some very nasty ways, so we are uncomfortable about telling others; they, in their turn, don't like to admit such things either, so they are reluctant to hear. Society, as a whole, doesn't like it either - look how easily we characterise and dehumanise these abusers as "monsters" - so it tends to shy away from confronting an uncomfortable truth.

And if that process is allowed to operate - or if we are not constantly vigilant to ensure that it doesn't - that culture of silence will be, silently, there again before we know it.

The first step is what we're already telling kids (and should be telling adults): "if someone touches you or does something to you that you don't like, TELL SOMEONE".

The next step, which I think we are still struggling with, is to LISTEN when people do tell us stuff. We still have a long way to go, there - let's not start patting ourselves on the back prematurely.
 
The message given over here presently to young kids is:

1. Shout NO and draw attention
2. Get away/ run if you can
3. Tell someone you trust

That is in my opinion the best advice any child can be given
 
The message given over here presently to young kids is:

1. Shout NO and draw attention
2. Get away/ run if you can
3. Tell someone you trust

That is in my opinion the best advice any child can be given
It is very good advice, for a particular set of circumstances, but it looks like advice that is given on the basis of the abuse being the stereotypical "stranger danger" grab'n'grope type of abuse.

That kind of abuse represents only a small minority of the overall problem of sexual abuse against children, most of which is perpetrated in private, by someone known to and/or trusted by the child, and usually after a considerable period of grooming and preparation.
 
The message given over here presently to young kids is:

1. Shout NO and draw attention
2. Get away/ run if you can
3. Tell someone you trust

That is in my opinion the best advice any child can be given
This is great if the child is able-bodied, in good health, etc. If they are sick, disabled, in hospital, as many js abused were, this is not always possible. Also if they r in care, or the sort of child who has been labelled troublesome, etc they r less likely to find anyone to believe them. Most abuse is done by family members/friends of family. This advice is helpful in cases of stranger abuse, but a child is often manipulated/groomed long before any physical abuse starts. helping children learn to recognise when someone is manipulating them is harder to do, but I think more helpful.
 
[QUOTE"existentialist, post: 13256040, member: 46721"]It is very good advice, for a particular set of circumstances, but it looks like advice that is given on the basis of the abuse being the stereotypical "stranger danger" grab'n'grope type of abuse.

That kind of abuse represents only a small minority of the overall problem of sexual abuse against children, most of which is perpetrated in private, by someone known to and/or trusted by the child, and usually after a considerable period of grooming and preparation.[/QUOTE]
Sorry i said basically what u posted but a few mins later!
 
Sorry i said basically what u posted but a few mins later!
No, actually, I think you've made a good additional point. Anyone who does any child protection training will know that disabled children are automatically regarded as "children in need" and recognised as being significantly more vulnerable to abuse. So a group of children who are MORE at risk of being abused are being given advice which is LESS applicable to their specific needs.

And I suspect whoever cooks up this self-evident garbage by way of "advice" toddles off on their way, happy that the job is done and that nobody needs to worry any more. Certainly, I would never have believed how much arrant nonsense is out there and presented as TrueFact™ as I do now, having done a fair bit of child protection training - it'd be quite shocking, if it wasn't so boringly commonplace.
 
No, actually, I think you've made a good additional point. Anyone who does any child protection training will know that disabled children are automatically regarded as "children in need" and recognised as being significantly more vulnerable to abuse. So a group of children who are MORE at risk of being abused are being given advice which is LESS applicable to their specific needs.

And I suspect whoever cooks up this self-evident garbage by way of "advice" toddles off on their way, happy that the job is done and that nobody needs to worry any more. Certainly, I would never have believed how much arrant nonsense is out there and presented as TrueFact™ as I do now, having done a fair bit of child protection training - it'd be quite shocking, if it wasn't so boringly commonplace.
Many children just would not have the confidence to start yelling for help. How often r they told to stop making a fuss/exaggerating? This is the msg chn r given far more than 'make a big fuss if someone does something u don't like'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom