Rolf Harris

susieb happy family snaps of naked children don't constitute indecent images and on their own would not raise suspicion. There has to be a context that creates concern.

Thousands of images of children being abused are an entirely different thing. We keep hearing about paedophiles using catalogues or magazines containing photos of children for their own perverse reasons, but this is a myth that has had some slight nugget of truth in it. Usually, the photos that are found and used as evidence of child abuse are extreme and distressing and any that look like normal snaps of children are likely to be children known to the offender.

The child protection consultation ends today.
Please sign up to this petition.
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/child-protection-consultation

Iam64 - the trouble with indecent images , is that they are in the eye of the beholder - many years ago, as a childminder , the kids ( 4 and under ) were all playing naked and happy in a paddling pool on an unexpectedly hot day - they looked really cute and I took a photo - their parents have a copy - but if these were on my computer, and I was accused of something, would someone else see them as indecent?
Obviously some would be obviously indecent, but some would be a grey area

with regard to the 7 year old, he denies ever having been to the venue.. which I am surmising must be the truth, as others would remember having a famous person there and would have taken photos

Iam64 - the tr
mising must be truerouble with indecent images , is that they are in the eye of the beholder - many years ago, as a childminder , the kids ( 4 and under ) were all playing naked and happy in a paddling pool on an unexpectedly hot day - they looked really cute and I took a photo - their parents have a copy - but if these were on my computer, and I was accused of something, would someone else see them as indecent?
Obviously some would be obviously indecent, but some would be a grey area

with regard to teh 7 year old, he denies ever having been to the venue.. which I am surmising must be the truth, as others would remember having a famous person there and would have taken photos

DSM iv (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) defines paedophilia in such a complicated way, including acknowledging that some paedophiles attracted to children 16 and younger never act on their urges, that it is argued over by psychiatrists and psychologists and regularly redefined. Therefore, although the terms paedophile and sex offender are often used interchangably, the legal term 'sex offender' is used in courts and throughout the criminal justice system to avoid confusion and legal challenges to diagnoses.

The wiki definition of paedophilia involves people who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children up to the age of 11 though when a formal diagnosis of the disorder is being decided on by the medical profession this is extended to 13.

I have to admit I haven't been following the case closely. One too many "Yew Tree" for me tbh. I didn't know about very little girls. I thought it was a thirteen year old. Which, of course, is really bad in itself. (Although you would think at that age she would have had the sense to keep away from him - I read it went on for a number of years). That is NOT excusing him in any way.

Jingle, he's charged with 9 offences of indecent assault of a child and I read one of the alleged offences is against a girl of 7. It was also widely reported after his arrest, that indecent images of children involving young was found on his lap top. I don't think this is before the court, and haven't seen anything in the press about it for some time.

Willingly dorsetpent. I think of a true paedophile as a person who craves sex with children of all ages all or most of the time. In such a way that they cannot resist their urge. That kind definitely need treatment. Is Rolfe Harris that kind? Who knows. But I doubt it. He probably thinks any girl from adolescence onwards is fair game.

Why not merlot I may disagree with the verdict. Any opinion I, or anyone, expresses either now or later will not make one iota of difference will it.

Not a lot of point in expressing an opinion after the jury's verdict, unless it's to agree with them

As we are not sitting in the court hearing all the evidence and cross examinations we can only go by what is being reported in the news. I'm a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty and although I never liked RH I will wait until the verdict of the jury is known before expressing my own opinion as to his guilt or innocence.

I am waiting until the court case is over before submitting further comment.

'Paedophile in the true sense of the word' - odd statement jingle could you perhaps elaborate.

You're probably right. I never could stand the man. Creepy. Eugh!

How do you know that, Jingle? He won't be assessed unless he is convicted of a sex offence, and then it would be determined whether he was the sort of sex offender who has a preference that includes children (paedophile-type) or the sort that elevates children to the status of adult and kids themselves it's a grown-up who can give informed consent to their sexual advances. Either way, if convicted, a history of committing sex offences against children says it can't be assumed that passage of time alone will stop that behaviour. Professionals working in child protection realised that long ago when children were being abused by elderly sex offenders and safeguards had to be put in.

He would n't need treatment! He was a chanced, not the kind of paedophile who couldn't help himself. Probably not even a paedophile at all in the true sense of the word.

If prosecutions weren't brought against sex offenders, many of whom will still be sexually attracted to children decades later, how would we protect children whose company they are in, now? 80 and 90 year old sex offenders still touch children inappropriately, still access abusive images of children, still trundle down to the precinct in wheelchairs and try to proposition children, still invite them into their houses to help with a little job, or get them to run an errand as a ruse to get them alone. Probation hostels that take sex offenders have to provide disabled access and space for elderly and frail sex offenders coming out of prison who despite treatment, are still a risk to children.

The cases brought against him go back 30 or 40 years. One would expect, if he had been continually offending, that other more recent ones would have emerged.

I am uneasy about the lapse of time between offence and prosecution and the fact that the victims stand to make quite a bit of money if the defendant is found guilty. One woman who was abused by Clifford sold her story to a newspaper for £30,000.

84 year olds are still capable of offending and any convicted sex offender is required to engage with treatment, Ana. At the least, they would need to show a 'treated profile' that demonstrates their risk to children has lowered. If imprisoned and on the sex offender register, the police would regularly call on him and/or bring him in for regular checks about his behaviour, and any computer equipment would be checked for abusive images.

Why would he need, or be eligible for 'treatment' if convicted? At 84, he's hardly likely to re-offend and it seems like a waste of money to me.

I would have expected the defence lawyer to leap up and use the 'going home alone' comment to explain those points about his wife's frailty or his daughter's residence elsewhere, but as this didn't happen I'm still thinking it speaks volumes. I've known a few spouses go to court with their husbands to make sure he goes in and deals with it.

However, it appears Rolf Harris isn't denying at the level the likes of Stuart Hall did. From what I've seen quoted from him, he would probably (if convicted) respond well, and quite quickly, to treatment. He appears to have changed over the years and those of us who have liked him in the last few years have seen a kind, caring side to his nature. It's an interesting case that highlights how unwilling we are to contemplate that nice men harm children.

I am disappointed that someone who seemed so wholesome may have done these things.

It irritates me (as I said before on this thread) that he arrives like an old man being helped along each day, but on the day he is describing his career they say he broke into song and was upbeat.

He either is frail or he's not. You will have to make your own minds up.

Better shortcut.

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/child-protection-consultation

Having an affair with an 18 year old is certainly reprehensible but not illegal.

The fact that Harris's wife and daughter turn up to court with him each morning, facing a barrage of reporters and hostility from the crowd, is something I admire.

They could so easily just stay at home.