Rolf Harris

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Hello everyone.
Rolf Harris's wife, I don't think she is a well lady , She is under enormous strain. I wish her well.
A thought from a newbie.........
Over the years ( and many of them ) . I have been groped, touched up, held, on one occasion against a wall with very unwanted attentions, . Sadly this is reasonably normal .
A lot of men think that women are Fair Game and why not try it on. ( the first time some one did this I was eight years old ).
Guess what, it has not ruined my life, it has not driven me to drink and I have grown up into a reasonably normal human being.
Because of the Jimmy Savile horror, a witch hunt is going on .Bad stuff happens , most women at some time in their lives have to deal with it .
These women who have made accusations after so many years who are , in my opinion out for blood, money, notoriety
What about all the unknown men who have done this , why are they not in court ? . Answer , they are not celebrities no kudos in prosecuting them.. What a sad old world we live in.
In no way do I condone or want to belittle any of the people who have been harmed by Savile he was a complete monster.

In this country we are innocent until proven guilty.

Blue22 - so pleased your life wasn't ruined - that makes everything all right then doesn't it?

No of course not... But if a prosecution was brought for every case of this type going back into history. The courts would be full and a waiting list a mile long and the jails full to overflowing. What I don't understand is why is it only celebrities?
As I also said in this country we are innocent until proven guilty.

It isn't only celebrities - there are thousands of sex offenders in prison, convicted of historical abuse of children. Press people who sit in court have to choose which one they're going to cover, so they go for the one most likely to sell papers. In some crown courts there will only be one or two members of the press checking out what's listed, in others there are none, hence no publicity.

I suppose the next thing will be a plethora of groupies who followed a lot of the groups from the sixties , seventies etc , now complaining that they were taken advantage of !!!

Well said when.

If JS's legacy means that more individuals are aware of the extent of sexual abuse, then that's the only positive thing to come out of the whole awful saga.

One of my close work colleagues had a history of child sexual abuse. No - one knew. She was a great worker, but in her 50's, her childhood experiences broke free of whatever mechanisms she'd successfully used till that point. She had a significant breakdown. Just saying

How did she know that that caused the breakdown? It is possible to live a completely normal life after childhood abuse.

There has got to be some fishing for money in some of this. Probably in a lot of it.

It's one thing if it is a child involved. Quite another when it's someone over the age of consent who could have got herself out of the way of it.

She didn't know it caused the breakdown jing - the medical staff worked that one out.
What's a completely normal life?

There may be some fishing for money, but I'm sure any fantasies of that type are hugely outweighed by the genuine numbers of individuals who have experienced abuse.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

One of Max Clifford's victims was recently paid £30,000 for selling their story.

Were the medical staff who 'worked that one out' trained psychologists/psychiatrists?

In my training as a counselling psychologist it was drummed into us not to jump to conclusions.

I sometimes feel alarmed when a poster confidently, and without any hint of a doubt, makes a psychological diagnosis/interpretation without ever having met the people involved.

In all the years I worked with 'clients' I was never 100 percent sure of anything and I saw some of them for several years.

It is astonishing to me that when the activities of various bands, cricket and football teams and so on were given so much publicity in the 60s and 70s there haven't been hundreds of complaints already! Perhaps the news stories weren't true?

The girls could be biding their time . There must be many members of those groups who are feeling nervous now. I'm sure they didn't bother to check out the girls' birth certificates.

My best friend from school (I am afraid to say) thinks it is OK for men to pinch bottoms, stroke them and 'playfully' slap their behinds. She says she has been groped on many occasion and it 'didn't do her harm' Well lucky her, I told her, I certainly let any groper in the office (I was only 16) let him know what I thought.

As for bands, I was once (aged 16) asked if I would like to meet a very famous band at the time. The guy who asked me was something to do with sound. I was excited until he said that one of them (the best looking by the way) would want 'something in return'. I was quite an innocent 16 year old but knew what he meant and declined the offer of a meeting with the band.

I used to live near the Health Club where Mr Saville visited. A friend's daughter (15) had a weekend job there and was apparently abused by him.

Well time and the jury will tell in this instance .
A lot of people will be sadly disillusioned if R H is found guilty. Hopefully the accusers will not cash in and write their memoirs ...god help us.
But to pull him and his family to bits before any verdict is just , well tacky . It appeals to the lowest denominator in human beings...kick em while they are down... Bit sad really.

Oh come on Blue! We are women, not saints. If someone so much in the public eye gets into this kind of mess, we are bound to talk about it. Just like the rest of the country.