Rolf Harris

[Coneheadjohn]

Can you tell what is it yet?

Yep,it’s Rolf wandering around a school playground.

Surely his license doesn’t allow that does it?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6671779/Convicted-paedophile-Rolf-Harris-reported-police-thrown-school-grounds.html

[Sith Happens]

Wait..he's allowed to live three doors down from a school! 

 

[Zag zig]

Might seem controversial but looks a bit sensationalist to me.

All the same dumb of him to go ask a wood sculptor for wood, when he has gone past a school gate, even if there wasn’t a kid within reach. 

[Sith Happens]

17 minutes ago, Zag zig said:

Might seem controversial but looks a bit sensationalist to me.

All the same dumb of him to go ask a wood sculptor for wood, when he has gone past a school gate, even if there wasn’t a kid within reach. 

Hope it wasn't his wood he was waving.

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, Zag zig said:

Might seem controversial but looks a bit sensationalist to me.

All the same dumb of him to go ask a wood sculptor for wood, when he has gone past a school gate, even if there wasn’t a kid within reach. 

The sensationalisation of it all pisses me right off. 

I’ll admit, I was a big fan of Rolf, and this massively disappointed me at the time. So I kind of put my blinkers on to it. As far as I know, he abused his position of trust, touched up some teenagers, and served time for it. And absolutely I won’t argue against that being the right outcome. 

But the headline ‘convicted peadophile’ physio him in the same bracket as people who abduct 3 year olds and rape them. People who ought to full on castrated, if not hung (on a side note, I watched season 3 of Luther yesterday, it’s a hot topic in that). Rolf doesn’t deserve to be hung, as far as I can tell. 

It hits close to home. I have a mate who is a ‘convicted peadophile’. His crime was touching a 17 year old, 2 weeks off her 18th birthday, on the boob. It could have been argued that it was accidental, but for various reasons, he took it on the chin. Now he’s a ‘convicted peadophile’ served 2 years probation, and on the SoR for 10 years. 

What really annoys me about that situation, is that he used to be a good source of childcare. I had to have a various serious conversation with social care about how I’d have my kids taken off me if I left them in his care. A 1 year old girl, and a 2 year old boy. Now nothing about his conviction implies that he’s got any intention of touching any boys if any age, and certainly nothing about touching up a 17 year old implies you’ve got intention to fiddle with toddlers of any gender. 

To add an extra layer of ridiculousness, his SoR runs out when my oldest daughter is 16, so, if he is the sexual predator social care make out, she’s falling right into his preffered age range. As a responsible parent, I might actually think twice about leaving her in his care at that age, but social care would have no problem with it. After 10 years, he is clearly cured of his perversion. 

The final layer of stupidity is a hypothetical I posed to them. It’s the middle of the night, my wife is being rushed to hospital (at the time she was pregnant), on the one side of me lives my friend, who the kids have known since birth, and I’ve known forever, on the other side lives some weirdo that’s just moved in, I don’t know him from Adam, but I’ve got a bad vibe. Who do I ask to come and sit with my kids while I take my wife to hospital? Social cares official advice was ‘that’s entirely your decision, but you can’t leave your kids with your friend, if you do, and we find out, we’ll take your kids, because you’re clearly not fit to make sensible decisions on their behalf.’

ducking social worker didn’t even have kids of her own!

Anyway, glad to get that off my chest, and breathe. Bringing it back on topic, Rolf’s ‘preference’ is teenage girls. There are no teenagers in a primary school, so he clearly wasn’t there on the prowl, unless prison somehow made him even more deviant, in which case, the justice system sucks. 

[Sith Happens]

42 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

The sensationalisation of it all pisses me right off. 

I’ll admit, I was a big fan of Rolf, and this massively disappointed me at the time. So I kind of put my blinkers on to it. As far as I know, he abused his position of trust, touched up some teenagers, and served time for it. And absolutely I won’t argue against that being the right outcome. 

But the headline ‘convicted peadophile’ physio him in the same bracket as people who abduct 3 year olds and rape them. People who ought to full on castrated, if not hung (on a side note, I watched season 3 of Luther yesterday, it’s a hot topic in that). Rolf doesn’t deserve to be hung, as far as I can tell. 

It hits close to home. I have a mate who is a ‘convicted peadophile’. His crime was touching a 17 year old, 2 weeks off her 18th birthday, on the boob. It could have been argued that it was accidental, but for various reasons, he took it on the chin. Now he’s a ‘convicted peadophile’ served 2 years probation, and on the SoR for 10 years. 

What really annoys me about that situation, is that he used to be a good source of childcare. I had to have a various serious conversation with social care about how I’d have my kids taken off me if I left them in his care. A 1 year old girl, and a 2 year old boy. Now nothing about his conviction implies that he’s got any intention of touching any boys if any age, and certainly nothing about touching up a 17 year old implies you’ve got intention to fiddle with toddlers of any gender. 

To add an extra layer of ridiculousness, his SoR runs out when my oldest daughter is 16, so, if he is the sexual predator social care make out, she’s falling right into his preffered age range. As a responsible parent, I might actually think twice about leaving her in his care at that age, but social care would have no problem with it. After 10 years, he is clearly cured of his perversion. 

The final layer of stupidity is a hypothetical I posed to them. It’s the middle of the night, my wife is being rushed to hospital (at the time she was pregnant), on the one side of me lives my friend, who the kids have known since birth, and I’ve known forever, on the other side lives some weirdo that’s just moved in, I don’t know him from Adam, but I’ve got a bad vibe. Who do I ask to come and sit with my kids while I take my wife to hospital? Social cares official advice was ‘that’s entirely your decision, but you can’t leave your kids with your friend, if you do, and we find out, we’ll take your kids, because you’re clearly not fit to make sensible decisions on their behalf.’

ducking social worker didn’t even have kids of her own!

Anyway, glad to get that off my chest, and breathe. Bringing it back on topic, Rolf’s ‘preference’ is teenage girls. There are no teenagers in a primary school, so he clearly wasn’t there on the prowl, unless prison somehow made him even more deviant, in which case, the justice system sucks. 

Rolf Harris was a predator. One of his victims was just 7 years old.

He didn't even serve 3 years. How is that right? Adam Johnson got a longer sentence than Harris.

Considering the age of his youngest victim he shouldn't be allowed to live anywhere near a school of any description.

[Spanish]

1 hour ago, TigerTedd said:

 

It hits close to home. I have a mate who is a ‘convicted peadophile’. His crime was touching a 17 year old, 2 weeks off her 18th birthday, on the boob. It could have been argued that it was accidental, but for various reasons, he took it on the chin. Now he’s a ‘convicted peadophile’ served 2 years probation, and on the SoR for 10 years. 

 

 

isn't the age of consent 16?

[Stive Pesley]

30 minutes ago, Spanish said:

isn't the age of consent 16?

I'm guessing it wasn't consensual - the point being that if he'd groped her two weeks later, it would be a "normal" sex offence rather than because she's a minor it being considered a paedophilic sex offence

 

[SSD]

He should have had a sentence as big as Adam Johnson's. Must have had better lawyers.

[TigerTedd]

3 hours ago, Paul71 said:

Rolf Harris was a predator. One of his victims was just 7 years old.

He didn't even serve 3 years. How is that right? Adam Johnson got a longer sentence than Harris.

Considering the age of his youngest victim he shouldn't be allowed to live anywhere near a school of any description.

Fair one then. I just quickly read the article that said he was convicted of assaulting teenage girls. If he was after 7 year olds, then throw away the key. 

Not that going after teenage girls is in any way acceptable of course, but I’d put it on a different level to a 7 year old, and there’s probably more complicated factors like abusing a position of trust and serial predatory  behaviour that I’ve not taken into account (poo, if I keep digging, maybe I’ll get to New Zealand). 

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, StivePesley said:

I'm guessing it wasn't consensual - the point being that if he'd groped her two weeks later, it would be a "normal" sex offence rather than because she's a minor it being considered a paedophilic sex offence

 

Precisely, two weeks makes all difference. He may have still ended up with the probation, but wouldn’t be in the SoR, and would be allowed around kids. 

The other irony is that, 2 weeks later (or actually way before it all came to light), the girl in question was 18, and the authorities wouldn’t bat an eye if he was with her unsupervised. So the only person really effected is me and my kids. (I know that’s very selfish of me).

In fact, he could look after someone else’s kids, cos they’re not obliged to do a background check, and he’s not obliged to tell them. But because I know, and have had the chat with social care, they would literally take the kids off me if I left them I’m his care. It’s mental. 

[Spanish]

3 hours ago, StivePesley said:

I'm guessing it wasn't consensual - the point being that if he'd groped her two weeks later, it would be a "normal" sex offence rather than because she's a minor it being considered a paedophilic sex offence

 

so if its non consensual with an 18 year old it doesn't go on the SoR?

asking for a friend

[McRamFan]

42 minutes ago, Spanish said:

so if its non consensual with an 18 year old it doesn't go on the SoR?

asking for a friend

If you are convicted, you are a sex offender, and will be on the register.  Depending on the punishment you recieve, for the offence, will determine how long you are on for.

http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/information-sex-offence-notification-requirements/

[Parsnip]

I have no idea what Rolf did - but I definitely thought he'd already died in prison.

[Rev]

41 minutes ago, Parsnip said:

I have no idea what Rolf did - but I definitely thought he'd already died in prison.

I thought he touched up a friend of his daughter when she stayed over, that's all I read.

Disgusting obviously, but calls for him to be hung are equally wrong.

From the testimony presented before the court, he was already hung enough I'd say.

 

[Spanish]

10 hours ago, Paul71 said:

Rolf Harris was a predator. One of his victims was just 7 years old.

He didn't even serve 3 years. How is that right? Adam Johnson got a longer sentence than Harris.

Considering the age of his youngest victim he shouldn't be allowed to live anywhere near a school of any description.

 

1 hour ago, reveldevil said:

I thought he touched up a friend of his daughter when she stayed over, that's all I read.

Disgusting obviously, but calls for him to be hung are equally wrong.

From the testimony presented before the court, he was already hung enough I'd say.

 

I believe he was found guilty for 11 out of 12 alleged offences.  He was not found guilty for the accusation involving the 7/8 year old, fwiw 

[StringerBell]

11 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

The sensationalisation of it all pisses me right off. 

I’ll admit, I was a big fan of Rolf, and this massively disappointed me at the time. So I kind of put my blinkers on to it. As far as I know, he abused his position of trust, touched up some teenagers, and served time for it. And absolutely I won’t argue against that being the right outcome. 

But the headline ‘convicted peadophile’ physio him in the same bracket as people who abduct 3 year olds and rape them. People who ought to full on castrated, if not hung (on a side note, I watched season 3 of Luther yesterday, it’s a hot topic in that). Rolf doesn’t deserve to be hung, as far as I can tell. 

It hits close to home. I have a mate who is a ‘convicted peadophile’. His crime was touching a 17 year old, 2 weeks off her 18th birthday, on the boob. It could have been argued that it was accidental, but for various reasons, he took it on the chin. Now he’s a ‘convicted peadophile’ served 2 years probation, and on the SoR for 10 years. 

What really annoys me about that situation, is that he used to be a good source of childcare. I had to have a various serious conversation with social care about how I’d have my kids taken off me if I left them in his care. A 1 year old girl, and a 2 year old boy. Now nothing about his conviction implies that he’s got any intention of touching any boys if any age, and certainly nothing about touching up a 17 year old implies you’ve got intention to fiddle with toddlers of any gender. 

To add an extra layer of ridiculousness, his SoR runs out when my oldest daughter is 16, so, if he is the sexual predator social care make out, she’s falling right into his preffered age range. As a responsible parent, I might actually think twice about leaving her in his care at that age, but social care would have no problem with it. After 10 years, he is clearly cured of his perversion. 

The final layer of stupidity is a hypothetical I posed to them. It’s the middle of the night, my wife is being rushed to hospital (at the time she was pregnant), on the one side of me lives my friend, who the kids have known since birth, and I’ve known forever, on the other side lives some weirdo that’s just moved in, I don’t know him from Adam, but I’ve got a bad vibe. Who do I ask to come and sit with my kids while I take my wife to hospital? Social cares official advice was ‘that’s entirely your decision, but you can’t leave your kids with your friend, if you do, and we find out, we’ll take your kids, because you’re clearly not fit to make sensible decisions on their behalf.’

ducking social worker didn’t even have kids of her own!

Anyway, glad to get that off my chest, and breathe. Bringing it back on topic, Rolf’s ‘preference’ is teenage girls. There are no teenagers in a primary school, so he clearly wasn’t there on the prowl, unless prison somehow made him even more deviant, in which case, the justice system sucks. 

Paedophiles wouldn't be interested in 17 year olds so that makes no sense. And do gynaecologists need fannies?

[RamNut]

Quote

Who do I ask to come and sit with my kids while I take my wife to hospital? Social cares official advice was ‘that’s entirely your decision, but you can’t leave your kids with your friend, if you do, and we find out, we’ll take your kids, because you’re clearly not fit to make sensible decisions on their behalf.’

Thats appalling.

[ronnieronalde]

Some of the decisions Social Services makes and forces on families is nothing short of criminal but that's another matter for another day.

How old was your mate @TigerTedd and was it a genuine accident or was it a case of him chancing his arm so to speak?

In terms of Rolf, others and even Adam Johnson. I have little sympathy. The age gap is too big to be healthy and when it comes down to push or shove it's the adults responsibility to know which lines shouldn't be crossed. Teenage girls are susceptible and full of admiration for wise older men. To take advantage of that under any circumstances is wrong.

Adults failing children. You're an adult for god's sakes, how can you do things like that to a kid and how can you not know it's wrong?

I read the other day 140,000 children a year go missing in the UK. Jesus Christ that's a lot and they're not all hanging around with each other in some fun fair in the forest. Where are they all and who's got them?

[ronnieronalde]

12 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

The sensationalisation of it all pisses me right off. 

I’ll admit, I was a big fan of Rolf, and this massively disappointed me at the time. So I kind of put my blinkers on to it. As far as I know, he abused his position of trust, touched up some teenagers, and served time for it. And absolutely I won’t argue against that being the right outcome. 

But the headline ‘convicted peadophile’ physio him in the same bracket as people who abduct 3 year olds and rape them. People who ought to full on castrated, if not hung (on a side note, I watched season 3 of Luther yesterday, it’s a hot topic in that). Rolf doesn’t deserve to be hung, as far as I can tell. 

It hits close to home. I have a mate who is a ‘convicted peadophile’. His crime was touching a 17 year old, 2 weeks off her 18th birthday, on the boob. It could have been argued that it was accidental, but for various reasons, he took it on the chin. Now he’s a ‘convicted peadophile’ served 2 years probation, and on the SoR for 10 years. 

What really annoys me about that situation, is that he used to be a good source of childcare. I had to have a various serious conversation with social care about how I’d have my kids taken off me if I left them in his care. A 1 year old girl, and a 2 year old boy. Now nothing about his conviction implies that he’s got any intention of touching any boys if any age, and certainly nothing about touching up a 17 year old implies you’ve got intention to fiddle with toddlers of any gender. 

To add an extra layer of ridiculousness, his SoR runs out when my oldest daughter is 16, so, if he is the sexual predator social care make out, she’s falling right into his preffered age range. As a responsible parent, I might actually think twice about leaving her in his care at that age, but social care would have no problem with it. After 10 years, he is clearly cured of his perversion. 

The final layer of stupidity is a hypothetical I posed to them. It’s the middle of the night, my wife is being rushed to hospital (at the time she was pregnant), on the one side of me lives my friend, who the kids have known since birth, and I’ve known forever, on the other side lives some weirdo that’s just moved in, I don’t know him from Adam, but I’ve got a bad vibe. Who do I ask to come and sit with my kids while I take my wife to hospital? Social cares official advice was ‘that’s entirely your decision, but you can’t leave your kids with your friend, if you do, and we find out, we’ll take your kids, because you’re clearly not fit to make sensible decisions on their behalf.’

ducking social worker didn’t even have kids of her own!

Anyway, glad to get that off my chest, and breathe. Bringing it back on topic, Rolf’s ‘preference’ is teenage girls. There are no teenagers in a primary school, so he clearly wasn’t there on the prowl, unless prison somehow made him even more deviant, in which case, the justice system sucks. 

Such a brave post by the way.  On a very sensitive subject you've managed to put across a point of view I struggle to agree with really well.

You clearly trust your mate 100% and that decision should be yours and yours alone. I can't imagine for one second you'd put your kids into the care of someone if you had even the tiniest of doubts. Without being all cheesy, he's lucky to have such a loyal friend stand behind him.

duck the social services.

Although there are no doubt some fantastic caring people working for them, they take their eye of too many obvious cases for me to respect the profession.